Archive 2014 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
j.liam wrote:
Don't think that it's a matter of winner or loser here or anyone is 'silly' for questioning the conventional wisdom. These four aforementioned optics inhabit a rarified realm of very specialized tools that function best in a limited context. None are worth bothering with beyond f/4 (some might argue f/2.8). The NOCT is a well-known quantity and for its time, had few peers. Nikon has clearly improved upon it: even better coma control, reduced CA wide open, less field curvature, and all the while preserving a wonderful bokeh. Perhaps the crowd's expectations were heightened by the long 17 year wait for a replacement and they yearned for some undefinable 'extra'. Whether better central sharpness, no field curvature or the extra 1/2 stop, it's hard to say. It is also a tribute to how good the latest 50/1.4 & 1.8 are that people aren't all worked up about this lens. And thus they justifiably wonder, is it really worth the four-fold price differential compared to the 50/1.4?
If your aesthetic is discerning in that way, you know what you want/need. For the rest, it isn't so obvious. ...Show more →
***********************************
Liam
You bring up a great point regarding cost vs. benefit. I have a particularly sharp copy of the 50 f/1.8 D which I bought for ~ $105 back in the day. I love the lens and the shallow DOF it provided. Bhoken is a bit harsh when backgrounds have lots of fine detail and focus distance is short, but I can usually work around that. So I do have to ask, how much is my $1700 getting me to get the new 58mm (or 3K+ for the Noct). Basically I see 1/3 stop, slightly better FOV for my liking, and better bhoken for some situations. Now that might be worth $400 to $700 to me, but not $1700. So the question for me becomes : Which 50mm should I get that will have better bhoken than my current lens?
Now if I did not care about the $1700 and just wanted a better lens, I'd get the 58mm G over the Noct just due to price. The Noct is great, but for basically the same performance, the new lens is 1/2 the price ... no brainer.
Now if I want the ultimate in sharpness, the Otis wins hands down, but lacks AF ... and ironically it's super sharpness combined with its shallow DOF gives it the digital look that people complain about. Ironically, the softer image of the Nikon lenses is preferable for many portraits ... but maybe ont so much for objects.
Hmmm... no one lens does it all. I guess I'll stick with my lowly 50 f/1.8 D for now and start checking out which 50mm gives me better bhoken ... and maybe spend $500 or less to get it ... I suspect most people are thinking more like me ... but there are those that need better.
p.2 #2 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
I got rid of my 50mm F1.8 AFD because of too much flare. I purchased the new 50mm F1.8 AFSG and I am happy with it so far. It is a nice companion to the new 85mm F1.8 AFGS which I also have and I like. The op mentioned battle for the nocturnal but so many factors are being considered. Let's see night shots here. Better bokeh is in the realm of more than a 50mm focal length.
p.2 #5 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
DonM2 wrote:
Greetings, people ---
I assume in this thread context the term 'Otus' is referring to the Leica glass.
Where does the term 'Otus' come from?
Thanks........
DonM
It comes from the Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 Distagon, the current reigning king of fast normal lenses and the first lens in Zeiss's new Otus line (named after a species of Owl).
p.2 #6 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
ohsnaphappy wrote:
Some of these responses are pretty funny. Everyone bows to the Noct, as it should be. But very few people will give the 58G any kudos at all. You're bowing to the Noct on reputation alone. No one here will stand for a negative evaluation of this legend. But the 58G is basically identical. In some ways better. And it's half the price. And yet it's criticized. I laugh at anyone who praises the Noct and scoffs at the 58G. You have two lenses that are almost identical, two shots that are almost identical, but one is a loser and one is a winner? If you think that way you're silly. ...Show more →
The Noct deserves respect because it was the king of F mount fast normals for more than 30 years. It costs what it does primarily due to rarity (less than 10,000 were made in a 30+ year production run). It gets respect for what it was for so long.
The 58G is a good lens, and performs well. It's definitely better than the 50G's. But it's not enough better. Nikon seems to have settled for making a lens that looks like a Noct, and selling it for what the Noct sold for new. After 30 years, and for $1700 I'm expecting a real performance improvement and not seeing one.
It's nearly double the cost of what it should be for the current performance. Consider the Pentax DA* 55/1.4, a lens with extremely similar performance to the 58G and costs about $900. The ZA FE 55/1.8 Sonnar may be half a stop slower, but it's otherwise significantly better optically and costs $1100. The new Sigma 50/1.4 is expected to be superior optically and half the cost.
So why should I give the 58G respect? It's not earned much. You want me to spend over $1K on a normal, it had better be world-class. The 58G isn't, not with the modern lenses it competes with. At $1K I'd be saving up, at the current price I'm not even considering it.
p.2 #7 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
mawz wrote:
It comes from the Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 Distagon, the current reigning king of fast normal lenses and the first lens in Zeiss's new Otus line (named after a species of Owl).
genus of Owl
Feb 01, 2014 at 08:58 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
williamkazak wrote:
I got rid of my 50mm F1.8 AFD because of too much flare. I purchased the new 50mm F1.8 AFSG and I am happy with it so far. It is a nice companion to the new 85mm F1.8 AFGS which I also have and I like. The op mentioned battle for the nocturnal but so many factors are being considered. Let's see night shots here. Better bokeh is in the realm of more than a 50mm focal length.
Yes! I have had some good night shots ruined by the "green dot" of flare from my 50 f/1.8 D.... another reason to upgrade it at some point.
p.2 #9 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
DonM2 wrote:
Greetings, people ---
I assume in this thread context the term 'Otus' is referring to the Leica glass.
Where does the term 'Otus' come from?
Thanks........
DonM
It is the name of a genus of owl and the name of the new line of fast and well corrected Zeiss lenses for 35mm format. Right now being used to reference the 55mm f/1.4 lens Zeiss has released; the only production Otus.
p.2 #10 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
mawz wrote:
The Noct deserves respect because it was the king of F mount fast normals for more than 30 years. It costs what it does primarily due to rarity (less than 10,000 were made in a 30+ year production run). It gets respect for what it was for so long.
The 58G is a good lens, and performs well. It's definitely better than the 50G's. But it's not enough better. Nikon seems to have settled for making a lens that looks like a Noct, and selling it for what the Noct sold for new. After 30 years, and for $1700 I'm expecting a real performance improvement and not seeing one.
It's nearly double the cost of what it should be for the current performance. Consider the Pentax DA* 55/1.4, a lens with extremely similar performance to the 58G and costs about $900. The ZA FE 55/1.8 Sonnar may be half a stop slower, but it's otherwise significantly better optically and costs $1100. The new Sigma 50/1.4 is expected to be superior optically and half the cost.
So why should I give the 58G respect? It's not earned much. You want me to spend over $1K on a normal, it had better be world-class. The 58G isn't, not with the modern lenses it competes with. At $1K I'd be saving up, at the current price I'm not even considering it....Show more →
I think your logic is hilarious. You're praising the original 58, which costs two times more than the new 58, and you're complaining the new 58 is too expensive, when it's half the price of the old 58.
There's this illogical "Nikon has settled" thought process all over this forum and I think it should be challenged. The fact that Nikon achieved the bokeh of the old 1.2 with a 1.4 is a testament to their ingenuity.
Feb 01, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
mawz wrote:
The Noct deserves respect because it was the king of F mount fast normals for more than 30 years. It costs what it does primarily due to rarity (less than 10,000 were made in a 30+ year production run). It gets respect for what it was for so long.
The 58G is a good lens, and performs well. It's definitely better than the 50G's. But it's not enough better. Nikon seems to have settled for making a lens that looks like a Noct, and selling it for what the Noct sold for new. After 30 years, and for $1700 I'm expecting a real performance improvement and not seeing one.
It's nearly double the cost of what it should be for the current performance. Consider the Pentax DA* 55/1.4, a lens with extremely similar performance to the 58G and costs about $900. The ZA FE 55/1.8 Sonnar may be half a stop slower, but it's otherwise significantly better optically and costs $1100. The new Sigma 50/1.4 is expected to be superior optically and half the cost.
So why should I give the 58G respect? It's not earned much. You want me to spend over $1K on a normal, it had better be world-class. The 58G isn't, not with the modern lenses it competes with. At $1K I'd be saving up, at the current price I'm not even considering it....Show more →
************************************
You speak like the lenses are people ... they are things ... and nothing more than tools to boot.
p.2 #12 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
ohsnaphappy wrote:
I think your logic is hilarious. You're praising the original 58, which costs two times more than the new 58, and you're complaining the new 58 is too expensive, when it's half the price of the old 58.
There's this illogical "Nikon has settled" thought process all over this forum and I think it should be challenged. The fact that Nikon achieved the bokeh of the old 1.2 with a 1.4 is a testament to their ingenuity.
You miss "mawz" point. With exquisitely corrected optics like the Sony 55 and others coming out for $1000 or less, don't you think Nikon could have done more than simply faithfully emulate and tweak a lens designed almost 40 years ago?
That it's 1/2 the price of a collectible is hardly meaningful; what are you getting for the extra $1300-1500 over their own next best offerings.
p.2 #13 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
j.liam wrote:
You miss "mawz" point. With exquisitely corrected optics like the Sony 55 and others coming out for $1000 or less, don't you think Nikon could have done more than simply faithfully emulate and tweak a lens designed almost 40 years ago?
That it's 1/2 the price of a collectible is hardly meaningful; what are you getting for the extra $1300-1500 over their own next best offerings.
I understand what you are saying. So, I think you should buy the Sony or the Pentax or the Sigma, whatever suits you and matches your equipment. I noticed that you love Sigma and somewhat antagonistic towards Nikon from your previous posts. Perhaps the high cost of Nikon equipment is something you don't like... so get a Merrill from Sigma and the line of Siggy glass and stop using Nikon. Maybe it will make you happy.
p.2 #14 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
j.liam wrote:
You miss "mawz" point. With exquisitely corrected optics like the Sony 55 and others coming out for $1000 or less, don't you think Nikon could have done more than simply faithfully emulate and tweak a lens designed almost 40 years ago?
That it's 1/2 the price of a collectible is hardly meaningful; what are you getting for the extra $1300-1500 over their own next best offerings.
I think I'm just looking at this lens differently than many of you. I'm not looking at the 1.4G vs 1.8G vs. Sigma vs Otus etc. I look at the 58 1.4G as my opportunity to finally get the Noct. I have a friend who shoots with the Noct. Look at his Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhotelin/
Portrait photographers, like myself, lust after this lens. It's magical. And now I have one for half the price. And I think that's exactly why Nikon made it.
If I was just in the market for the sharpest 50 out there, which many of you are, then I'd understand why the 58 1.4G frustrates you.
p.2 #15 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
AMaji wrote:
I understand what you are saying. So, I think you should buy the Sony or the Pentax or the Sigma, whatever suits you and matches your equipment. I noticed that you love Sigma and somewhat antagonistic towards Nikon from your previous posts. Perhaps the high cost of Nikon equipment is something you don't like... so get a Merrill from Sigma and the line of Siggy glass and stop using Nikon. Maybe it will make you happy.
Actually, I've been a Nikon user since the mid 90's and own a NOCT, favorite of the dozen Nikkors in my possession. Just expect more from them.
p.2 #16 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
From my own obsession of fast lenses, I think the idea of having a 58G vs a 50G (both F1.4) at 3x the price is the tiny difference between them. The same thing goes for the Noct or Otus which go for nearly 10x the price of 50G.
Are those more expensive lenses better? You bet.
Are those improvements, albeit marginal, worth the price difference? That's to each's opinion. For people who seek the ultimate performance or rendition, the price difference is justifiable. For people who think the 50G or any other cheaper lenses are good enough, the price difference seems absurd.
The same thing can be observed in many other industries: cars, audio equipments, watches... etc. The difference between a basic and high-end model can be unbelievable sometimes, but it's the price one have to pay to pursue the *best*, however subjective *best* might be.
p.2 #17 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
ohsnaphappy wrote:
I look at the 58 1.4G as my opportunity to finally get the Noct. ...Portrait photographers, like myself, lust after this lens. It's magical. And now I have one for half the price. And I think that's exactly why Nikon made it. If I was just in the market for the sharpest 50 out there, which many of you are, then I'd understand why the 58 1.4G frustrates you.
p.2 #18 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
azenis wrote:
From my own obsession of fast lenses, I think the idea of having a 58G vs a 50G (both F1.4) at 3x the price is the tiny difference between them. The same thing goes for the Noct or Otus which go for nearly 10x the price of 50G.
Are those more expensive lenses better? You bet.
Are those improvements, albeit marginal, worth the price difference? That's to each's opinion. For people who seek the ultimate performance or rendition, the price difference is justifiable. For people who think the 50G or any other cheaper lenses are good enough, the price difference seems absurd.
The same thing can be observed in many other industries: cars, audio equipments, watches... etc. The difference between a basic and high-end model can be unbelievable sometimes, but it's the price one have to pay to pursue the *best*, however subjective *best* might be.
I'll definitely say this, Nikon's 50's are incredible for the price. When I switched from Canon I couldn't believe how good the 50 1.4G was, especially compared to Canon's. Anyone who's just getting started, when they ask, I tell them the same thing, just get the 50 1.8G and shoot in aperture priority.
p.2 #20 · Clash of Titans - Battle for the ultimate Nocturnal lens
ohsnaphappy wrote:
I think your logic is hilarious. You're praising the original 58, which costs two times more than the new 58, and you're complaining the new 58 is too expensive, when it's half the price of the old 58.
There's this illogical "Nikon has settled" thought process all over this forum and I think it should be challenged. The fact that Nikon achieved the bokeh of the old 1.2 with a 1.4 is a testament to their ingenuity.
I'm praising the Noct for being a legend, and I understand the costs for an extremely rare collectible. Wouldn't buy one today, not at that cost. But it is rightly considered a legend (and like many legends, has been passed by in performance). Note a Noct cost new only a little more than a 58G does today (and it was a hand assembled lens with custom-ground elements, far more expensive to manufacture), it's only used and effectively as a collectors item that it got so expensive. Same thing happened with the 28/1.4D.
The 58G is no legend. It's a good lens, but costs world-class money and doesn't deliver world-class performance. Neither does the Noct today, but the Noct isn't a modern design and I don't expect modern performance from a lens designed 37 years ago.
