PetaPixel

Nikon Introduces a New 58mm f/1.4G Lens, Harkens Back to the 58mm f/1.2 of Old

nikkor58_1

In the midst of all these camera announcements, Nikon has taken the time to unveil a new piece of high-end glass as well. Paying homage to a lens discontinued 15 long years ago, Nikon is bringing back the 58mm prime lens, this time with an f/1.4 aperture.

From 1977 to 1998, Nikon’s 58mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor was a well-liked lens that still attracts buyers on eBay today. Since it was discontinued, nifty fifty lovers have had to content themselves without a Nikkor 58mm prime, but no more. The new 58mm f/1.4G has come along to save Noct-Nikkor lovers from having to spend somewhere in the vicinity of 5 grand on a used one online.

nikkor58_2

The new lens features nine glass elements in six groups (two aspherical) and a special Nano Crystal Coating and Nikon’s Super Integrated Coating for exceptional edge-to-edge sharpness and even lighting at all apertures — from f/1.4 all the way to f/16.

Inside are nine rounded aperture blades for beautiful bokeh, a Silent Wave Motor for quiet focusing, and 72mm filter thread for whatever it is you want to attach to the front.

The lens is an F-Mount and will fit all FX and DX cameras in the Nikon line, although with DX sensors the equivalent focal length goes up to 87mm. It’ll be available for purchase later this month (already up for pre-order) for those of you who want it and have $1,700 to drop on new glass.


 
  • Leonardo Abreu

    I’ll keep my 50…

  • Vaizki

    The DoF on this is thinner than on the Canon 50/1.2 due to the extra focal length. I guess that’s the basis for the price.. but it must be something special to sell.

  • Marco2k7

    Might just be the same or less as well, whoever puts his money on dof only is just a moron. But hey it’s not my money anyway.

    Nikon focused on coma and aberrations instead, the first one being extremely important in night shooting just as it was with the old noct. Another good point is falloff, where it’s well known many if not all 1.2 lenses are not really 1.2 on the corners because of it, so they just focused on 1.4 and getting the best out of it.

    It does remain a very dedicated lens, clearly not meant to be in place of any other Nikon 50mm 1.8G or 1.4G. Those are unbeatable for their price.

  • jrconner

    58mm is a better focal length than 50mm for DX, but not that much better for me to justify $1,700. I’m sticking with my 50mm f/1.8 G.

    Below, Marco27k makes some good points.

    I think the 58mm may be a high resolution lens designed for D800 and denser sensors. If that’s the case, it’s likely a bargain compared to the $4,000 Zeiss 55mm f/1.4.

  • Ali

    This lens would be utterly wasted on DX.

  • harumph

    Beat me to it. I don’t see any reason at all to spend that kind of money if you’re just going to put it on a DX camera.

  • http://radiancedeluxe.com/ radiancedeluxe

    I am very excited to see this lens. there is a real hole in between the 35mm 1.4g and the 85mm 1.4g which the previous 50′s did not fill at least performance wise. the nikkor 24/35/85 1.4g lenses have a very specific look that I really love. I expect/hope the new 58mm will compliment them.

  • Sketchy/Heebey

    Planning to upgrade to FF later on?

  • michael

    you have your filter size incorrect per Nikonusa it states a filter size of 72MM not 78mm can you explain?

  • DLCade

    It was a typo, thanks for pointing it out! It’s been fixed :)

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/kgnixer niXerKG

    This is an amazing lens for an amazing price.

    If you’re comparing this to any of the 50mm lenses, stop. This isn’t meant to replace any of them. It’s clearly an updated Noct and goes head to head with the Zeiss.

    That being said with Nikon’s QC problems lately I’d wait until some decent reviews come out and to be honest unless you really need the Noct features, stick to the 50mm f/1.8G.

  • Marco2k7

    That’s the point. But of course I don’t give a single heck about it or any Zeiss. They’re just too expensive for me. The 50mm 1.8/4G are just awesome price/performance lenses.

  • http://radiancedeluxe.com/ radiancedeluxe

    please provide examples of nikon lens QC issues.

  • Mescalamba

    Hm.. no f1.2? Disappointing a bit. Otherwise I guess Zeiss maybe started small wave of new normal lens. Hope Canon will catch and update obsolete 50/1.4 too (yep 50/1.2 is good, but 1.4 not).

  • Anto de Chav

    Looks like a great lens.. 9 bladed aperture,a 72mm filter and almost 1/3 the weight of the Zeiss otus, Nano coating and A.F.. I’m looking forward to getting one of these..

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/kgnixer niXerKG

    Didn’t say just lens QC issues, just over all QC issues as of late.

    But 28mm f/1.8G, 35mm f/1.4G, D800 Left AF issue, heck they just released a D610 to help clear up the D600 dust issue. SB-910 to fix the SB-900 overheating issue etc…

  • Marco2k7

    Uhm. Not much about lenses besides noisy AF-S drives, but we’ve seen some pretty bad stuff on the bodies side, better safe than sorry. I ALWAYS suggest to wait a couple of months, not only with Nikon. price settles and defects (if any) just pop up.

  • Marco2k7

    Some say Nikon could struggle making a 1.2 lens WITH the most recent AF contacts. They take up so much space.

    But actually they probably just focused like Zeiss in making a 1.4 lens with stunning results at 1.4 and no falloff, instead of a 1.2 lens with the need of stopping down to f2 for max performance.

  • Marco2k7

    I’d do the same if I had a FX body with 50mm lens.

  • http://radiancedeluxe.com/ radiancedeluxe

    no QC issues with either of those lenses. if you consider the performance trade offs to be a disadvantage for your taste, thats not QC. nikkor glass is part of a very old yet evolving tradition. digital camera bodies are a different story, and I agree there has been QC problems. but we are talking about lenses here, and body QC has absolutely nothing to do with lenses.

  • Genkakuzai

    Really looking forward to reviews on this lens, think we might have something special here.

  • harumph

    OK, that’s the only reason. But I’d still put that $1700 towards a full frame camera before I bought this lens.

  • kshitij

    i dont get it? 58mm? a bit weird focal length?

  • jrconner

    I wouldn’t pay $1,700 for it, but I suspect it would perform quite well with the 24MP D7100 DX. The most logical comparison, I suspect is with the Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 G. The 58mm provides four times the light gathering power of the 60mm at just over three times the cost, but it won’t provide a similar difference in resolution. For DX, even high density DX, the 50mm f/1.4 G Nikkor probably provides a better cost/benefit ratio than the 58mm.

  • Genkakuzai

    Apparently, going shorter than 55mm would require a whole different (and more complicated) lens construction. Which is why the newest creation from Zeiss is 55mm. Meaning, if they would have gone for 50mm and the same optical quality the lens would have been bigger.

  • Genkakuzai

    And that would be the law of diminishing returns. You simply can’t compare it to a 50mm, since that’s the most bang for the buck you’ll get regardless of brand. However, it’ll certainly give better results than any 50mm, if you just look at image quality.

  • pendergreyphoto.com

    at first i thought so as well. i mean ive been getting along without a 58mm prime for over a decade of shooting. *but* just in the way the 35/1.4g compliments the 24/1.4g, i think the 58/1.4g could compliment the 85/1.4g. im also in the camp that thinks 50mm is “too similar” to 35mm to warrant owning both. furthermore 58mm lets you get noticeably tighter than with less perspective distortion. ive been testing this with my 24-120/4g, 58mm does feel “distinct” from 50mm and thats a positive in a portrait context especially full body verticals. I own the other gold ring 1.4 primes, i think i may pick this one up as well. i just wish this came out during wedding season when my cash flow was more robust!

  • King of All Morons

    before you call other photographers “morons”, you need to check yourself. i am willing to bet a great number, if not the majority, of folks buying 1.4 primes are looking for thin DoF as the main advantage. faster shutters is of course a huge benefit, but that is really about using less ISO in the end. thin DoF is a look that only comes with fast lenses. i can understand you ignorant comment, though, mainly because you are still shooting crop sensor cameras and can never really get the “look” we are talking about (fwiw, FX can never really get that MF look either).

  • Marco2k7

    You may have missed I said “ONLY on dof”. Of course I am perfectly aware of influences of a fast lens. I was just saying DoF is not everything in a lens and someone screaming “OMG 1.2! SO MUCH SHALLOWER DOF” is just a moron.

    Yes, you get half a stop back from your ISO or get half a stop on shutter speed and that’s awesome, I love that. But some people just spend thousands after a subtle difference in DoF…they don’t even take into account shutter speed/ISO benefits cause they rarely find themselves in the need.

    And you must be able to master DoF, otherwise is useless.

    I shot film for a while, I perfectly know what you are talking about, I am myself a fan of fast primes for those reasons (trying on DX to get as close as I can to the control a 35mm film/sensor gives you…of course I’m rarely happy about that).

  • do not speak without fact

    you are confused. the zeiss lens is a distagon design. you are totally wrong.

  • Genkakuzai

    Regarding the Nikon lens I’m actually correct, according to Nikon 50mm would have required a much more complicated lens design, hence a bigger lens. The Zeiss bit, however, was more of a hunch. But do elaborate, oh mighty one, why is the Zeiss lens 55mm and not 50mm? I’m truly looking forward to your enlightening answer.

  • Genkakuzai

    I’d agree on pretty much all of that yeah. 35mm and 50mm IS a bit too close to one another.

  • practicing preacher

    i dont know. so i wont say.

  • Genkakuzai

    Ah I see, so.. let me get this straight, you “know” I’m wrong, and I’m “confused”. But you yourself don’t know? Makes perfect sense.

  • im calling your BS

    link? where did nikon say this would have been more complicated and bigger at 50mm.

  • http://www.ClickRAW.me/ Rob

    Just because someone does something the way you don’t like it, doesn’t make them a moron does it! Stop judging others for their choices and just get on making your own decisions. If someone buys the lens just because of the DOF thats their choice and is a good enough reason for them and it doesn’t effect your life.

  • emjaysea

    I would think the most logical comparison would be to the 1.4 85mm. This should prove to be a stunning portrait lens on a dx format camera.

  • Sarah Mattix

    I agree!! =)

  • Genkakuzai

    Great job petapixel at removing a post while keeping other crap.

  • Ali

    I’m sure it would perform very well on a D7100 but you are paying for the corner to corner sharpness which a DX body wouldn’t even use. The 50 f/1.4 is perfectly sharp in the centre, which is all a DX body needs.

  • Arup_2

    I still have my Old Film Camera 50mm 1.2 lens . Half stop faster!

  • Madan

    Well said, Rob.