Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

6 … 8 9 end

Archive 2021 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

coralnut
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

Ai_Print wrote:
The 58mm .95 fits squarely in that category. They won’t always make it and like the lenses I mentioned above, I bet it becomes exponentially more valuable once they stop selling it.
I think it's a general truth that whenever Nikon makes a ridiculously great performing niche lens, and discontinues it, that the prices get ridiculous. That seems to be more an artifact of their limited availability and collectible appeal, rather than their real-world usability.

Jan 14, 2022 at 09:44 PM

suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

coralnut wrote:
I think it's a general truth that whenever Nikon makes a ridiculously great performing niche lens, and discontinues it, that the prices get ridiculous. That seems to be more an artifact of their limited availability and collectible appeal, rather than their real-world usability.

Limited availability will drive up the price for sure. However, limited availability of superior product generally will drive up the price higher than limited availability of not so great product though. The price of the red anodized Leica 50/2 apo is ridiculous now.
However, if Leica released a red anodized version of the regular 50cron instead, I doubt we would see similar kind of price now.
(not that 50cron is bad but I think 50/2 apo is exceptional and it is still one of my favourite 50mm lens that I own).

Jan 14, 2022 at 10:05 PM

hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

I think some members here took the criticisms toward this lens as personal attacks. Is there any Nikon lens designers here? If not, we are all pretty clueless about what is really going on behind the scene regarding the why, the how, etc. So you're just as much an armchair critic as I am. And I would not take any statement too seriously along the line of "never" and "will not" as if that is so certain. These things happen if Nikon thinks there is enough market for it.

No one in their sane mind would say this lens is not amazing in term of optical prowess. But Nikon's decision on choosing MF-only for this lens is something up to debate. I have not seen any concrete evidence on the extent of IQ compromises when you are forced to go the AF route, though it's often cited. Regarding the smaller glass element for AF, I have seen it mentioned by lens designers several times. However, Canon did not really let it get in their way with the RF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2. Their USM motors can handle larger elements just fine (though not really silent). I have seen a lot of event togs switching to Canon RF system just for the 28-70/2 (the most expensive, heaviest, biggest normal zoom!?)

I do want Nikon to succeed in capturing more market. Though in this current outlook, I am not sure spending R&D effort and money on something with little practicality is the right move. I do hope Nikon's next halo products would be something with AF in mind (and fast AF no less).

Now the video-centric (minimal focus breathing) emphasis is also puzzling to me, but that is for another time.

Jan 14, 2022 at 10:14 PM

hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

suteetat wrote:
Limited availability will drive up the price for sure. However, limited availability of superior product generally will drive up the price higher than limited availability of not so great product though. The price of the red anodized Leica 50/2 apo is ridiculous now.
However, if Leica released a red anodized version of the regular 50cron instead, I doubt we would see similar kind of price now.
(not that 50cron is bad but I think 50/2 apo is exceptional and it is still one of my favourite 50mm lens that I own).

For the collectible market, performance is just a minor factor. Of course a Red Cron 50 would not fetch as high as a Red Cron 50 APO since the regular Cron 50 is already at a much lower price... I'm pretty sure if Leica releases a Red Noctilux 50/1 or even the 0.95, that will surely fetch more than the APO. Or in another case, a Red Nikkor Noct 58/0.95 will unlikely fetch higher than a Red Noctilux either. Nikon just doesn't have the same prestige.

Jan 14, 2022 at 10:27 PM

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

hiepphotog wrote:
I think some members here took the criticisms toward this lens as personal attacks. Is there any Nikon lens designers here? If not, we are all pretty clueless about what is really going on behind the scene regarding the why, the how, etc. So you're just as much an armchair critic as I am. And I would not take any statement too seriously along the line of "never" and "will not" as if that is so certain. These things happen if Nikon thinks there is enough market for it.

That is why I said: "Until we know the full facts behind all the decision making exercises or are a lens designer, then you are not really in a position to make judgement".

hiepphotog wrote:
No one in their sane mind would say this lens is not amazing in term of optical prowess. But Nikon's decision on choosing MF-only for this lens is something up to debate. I have not seen any concrete evidence on the extent of IQ compromises when you are forced to go the AF route, though it's often cited. Regarding the smaller glass element for AF, I have seen it mentioned by lens designers several times. However, Canon did not really let it get in their way with the RF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2. Their USM motors can handle larger elements just...Show more →

You say that "smaller glass elements are used in AF and mentioned by lens designers" which should be a hint that MF does not require this constraint and thus give the lens designer more freedom to possibly save weight, cost and lowr aberrations due to not needing to use certain glass to correct for this etc. The fact that Nikon *did* make this a MF lens seems to show that AF was not a priority and that there must have been some design constraints that pushed them to MF. There is no reason to go MF if AF was on the table to get the IQ results that Nikon wanted. So, there must have been a reason for MF over AF. So far, the only reasons I can see are the design constraints of the elements needed to be used for movig the AF section of the lens and/or the price/weight/size that would have resulted whilst keeping the IQ results as they had decided on.

As for Canon making their 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 AF and moving supposedly large elements is irrelevant to what design parameters Nikon was after and one being low focus breathing which they have stated is a parameter they have decided to adopt on a number of lenses. But it may not actually be the size of the AF elements that are the issue but *what* elements need to be moved in AF to get the result that Nikon wanted. In other words, it may have compromised the bokeh, and or wide open sharpness and or CA or a number of parameters in an already large lens. Yes, they may have been able to fix this with extra elements but it may have been an even larger, heavier and more costly lens than it is already. At the end of the day, I am sure they could design an optically perfect lens, but it would be huge, weighty and very costly. Again, that is what I am trying to convey and as I stated above, "Until we know the full facts behind all the decision making exercises or are a lens designer, then you are not really in a position to make judgement". See video link below.

hiepphotog wrote:
Now the video-centric (minimal focus breathing) emphasis is also puzzling to me, but that is for another time.

It shouldn't be puzzling. Nikon has realised that video is going to be a large part of their future and they are making some of their lenses that are low focus breathing. Whether Canon or Sony care about that aspect is irrelevant.

All this came about because someone stated that Nikon should have made the 58 f0.95 an AF lens. I'm sorry, but I'm sure you'll find it isn't that easy just to make that decision in this type of lens given it's already large size, weight and cost and the IQ that they were after.

This video goes on to show what the design constraints are for lenses. It is for ARRI lenses for cinematography, but the basics are the same. At the end of the day, these lenses are incredibly expensive, large and heavy compared to their 35mm counterparts that we use:

Jan 14, 2022 at 11:02 PM

coralnut
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

hiepphotog wrote:
... Is there any Nikon lens designers here? If not, we are all pretty clueless about what is really going on behind the scene regarding the why, the how, etc. So you're just as much an armchair critic as I am...

No one in their sane mind would say this lens is not amazing in term of optical prowess. But Nikon's decision on choosing MF-only for this lens is something up to debate. I have not seen any concrete evidence on the extent of IQ compromises when you are forced to go the AF route, though it's often cited.

I fit the definition of the armchair critic. I don't think that we're likely to see concrete examples regarding the tradeoff of IQ on the subject of MF vs AF because that would be delving far enough into the designs as to enter the realm of what designers consider their intellectual property and what manufacturers consider their trade secrets. I'm content to have seen the Youtube videos where the designer admitted that there was a compromise in designing the 24-70 E zoom. I don't think we're likely to get anything more than that out of Nikon. Actually, it was more than I expected.

I do want Nikon to succeed in capturing more market. Though in this current outlook, I am not sure spending R&D effort and money on something with little practicality is the right move.
It doesn't make sense to me either. I would have preferred to have seen the 1.8 line of mid-grade lenses accompanied by a large selection of highly useful 1.2-1.4 professional specialty lenses that would be widely accepted with enthusiasm, rather than an ultra-niche product that's intended to show what's possible, yet not really practical or widely useful.

Jan 14, 2022 at 11:21 PM

hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

Lance B wrote:
That is why I said: "Until we know the full facts behind all the decision making exercises or are a lens designer, then you are not really in a position to make judgement".

You say that "smaller glass elements are used in AF and mentioned by lens designers" which should be a hint that MF does not require this constraint and thus give the lens designer more freedom to possibly save weight, cost and lowr aberrations due to not needing to use certain glass to correct for this etc. The fact that Nikon *did* make this a MF lens...Show more →

This is going in a circle. Neither of us has any official knowledge to convince anyone. What you said is your own opinions. And we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It shouldn't be puzzling. Nikon has realised that video is going to be a large part of their future and they are making some of their lenses that are low focus breathing. Whether Canon or Sony care about that aspect is irrelevant.

All this came about because someone stated that Nikon should have made the 58 f0.95 an AF lens. I'm sorry, but I'm sure you'll find it isn't that easy just to make that decision in this type of lens given it's already large size, weight and cost and the IQ that they were after.

This video goes on to show...Show more →

This video touches on the basic concepts of lens design, it does not really say why Nikon could not do AF on this particular lens. But to say Nikon was making this lens to prepare the Z system for the possibility of video making is ridiculous. This lens is not at all practical for any serious film making: no focus gear, no physical distance/aperture scale, no luminous marks for visual aid, etc. And one lens won't make a system. At least Canon has an entire line-up of pseudo-cine lenses.

Minimal focus breathing is a nice feature to have, but to say this is for future expansion to video, I say Nikon is doing a half-baked job.

And since we're all speculating, if Nikon compromises on the focus breathing, imagine how much smaller this lens could be. Or they might be able to fit AF on this

Jan 15, 2022 at 12:16 AM

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

hiepphotog wrote:
This is going in a circle. Neither of us has any official knowledge to convince anyone. What you said is your own opinions. And we'll just have to agree to disagree.

This video touches on the basic concepts of lens design, it does not really say why Nikon could not do AF on this particular lens. But to say Nikon was making this lens to prepare the Z system for the possibility of video making is ridiculous. This lens is not at all practical for any serious film making: no focus gear, no physical distance/aperture scale, no luminous marks for visual...Show more →

The very reason for linking the video is to show why the basic concepts required in lens design, the compromises and why there are so many things to take into consideration.

As for Nikon making this lens to prepare them for video was not what I said. I said the Nikon are making lenses that *can be* used in video as some of them have low focus breathing and this was just one of them. A different kettle of fish. I also didn't say that Nikon going into video means that they need the full gamut of features, just that it is one feature that they have used is low focus breathing on *some* of their lens line up. It's not a case of all-in-or-not-in-at-all.

As for "imagine how much smaller this lens could be. Or they might be able to fit AF" if they didn't go for low focus breathing. That is just one parameter that may go towards a smaller lens but I didn't say it was the only one. As I keep saying, there are so many different aspects to making the 58 f0.95 that just saying that they could have gone AF or forgotten about focus breathing may not have made the differences that made it smaller or cheaper of lighter. That is why I linked the video as it isn't as simple as many make it out to be, especially in a top shelf lens like this. I would suggest that there is the law of diminishing returns where minor improvements in IQ require more significant size/weight/cost penalties.

Jan 15, 2022 at 01:00 AM

suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

Jan 15, 2022 at 02:56 AM

suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

hiepphotog wrote:
For the collectible market, performance is just a minor factor. Of course a Red Cron 50 would not fetch as high as a Red Cron 50 APO since the regular Cron 50 is already at a much lower price... I'm pretty sure if Leica releases a Red Noctilux 50/1 or even the 0.95, that will surely fetch more than the APO. Or in another case, a Red Nikkor Noct 58/0.95 will unlikely fetch higher than a Red Noctilux either. Nikon just doesn't have the same prestige.

I would not compare Nikon to Leica just because of different position of brands status symbol among other things.
However, Red Noctilux 50/1 like you said, probably will yield higher price but its bokeh and rendering is exceptional and
I would not neccessarily say that it is an inferior product to 50apo. Certainly many people prefer 50/1 looks over 50apo.
50/.95 is tricky, I think 50apo is a far better lens for my use but if a person said that 50/.95 is better because of its narrower dof and better isolation of subject, they would not be wrong either. I had both 50apo and 50/.95 for awhile as I think they are significantly different enough lens and have their own strenght. I sold the Noctilux when I bought Noct Nikkor because I found that with Noct Nikkor around, I don't have much use for Noctilux anymore but I might eventually pick up 50/1 for different rendering. But everytime I just about to buy one, I kept asking myself whether I would use it when I have Noct Nikkor already.

I picked 50cron and 50apo as an example because performance difference is obvious and the price point does reflect performance as well. There is a good reason 50apo is more expensive than 50cron and more sought after at least by those who can afford it. Do people buy 50apo because it is a better lens or becaus it is more expensive and is more status symbol item? I know why I bought my 50apo and could not have cared less about status symbol.
Now, it would not surprise me one bit if red 50/1 is in higher demand and fetch better price than 50/.95 .
One could also argue that 50/1 is more desirable and has more pleasing rendering than 50/.95 despite 50/1 having lower introductory price and current used price is holding quite well against 50/.95, I think.

Edited on Jan 15, 2022 at 08:31 AM · View previous versions

Jan 15, 2022 at 03:18 AM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

What I know for sure is that I’d rather invest in a mount where options such as the Noct are available.

Designing such a lens may be completely irrational but the rest of the Z line up is outstanding with no lens that isn’t close to best in class in its segment and an extremely appealing collection offering both tremendous value for the money (f1.8 S primes and f4 S primes) and super high end glass that nobody else offers such as the new 400mm f2.8 TC or 800mm f6.3 PF. So the Noct has clearly not impacted Nikon’s ability to serve its customers very well.

Nikon engineering decided to show the world what they can do. I am glad they did.

Jan 15, 2022 at 03:20 AM

Desmolicious
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

bernardl wrote:
Nikon engineering decided to show the world what they can do. I am glad they did.

That is a lovely glass half full statement.

Jan 15, 2022 at 07:37 AM

akul
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

I think as a starting point, we have to accept that ALL lens design compromises. There is no such thing as a 'perfect' lens.

Edited on Jan 16, 2022 at 01:59 AM · View previous versions

Jan 15, 2022 at 06:35 PM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

Desmolicious wrote:
That is a lovely glass half full statement.

You are not convinced this is the best lens currently available in that range of focal lengths?

Jan 15, 2022 at 07:26 PM

EdwardDye
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

hiepphotog wrote:
I have seen a lot of event togs switching to Canon RF system just for the 28-70/2 (the most expensive, heaviest, biggest normal zoom!?)

I do want Nikon to succeed in capturing more market. Though in this current outlook, I am not sure spending R&D effort and money on something with little practicality is the right move. I do hope Nikon's next halo products would be something with AF in mind (and fast AF no less).

Yeah, now you will see a lot of the event shooters move to Sony because of the amazing Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 lens, this lens is Really that good, I personally think it's even better than the 28-70/2 for events.

Totally agree with Nikon should use their R&D on something more useful than the MF 58mm f0.95... like a 14mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2, 105mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, and 200mm f2.

Jan 15, 2022 at 11:30 PM

EdwardDye
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

bernardl wrote:
Nikon engineering decided to show the world what they can do. I am glad they did.

Nikon engineering also decided to show the world what they can NOT do, which is putting AF into this lens...

Jan 15, 2022 at 11:33 PM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

EdwardDye wrote:
Nikon engineering also decided to show the world what they can NOT do, which is putting AF into this lens...

Well the 50mm f1.2 S is plain outstanding and focuses very fast on the Z9.

The point isn’t as much whether Nikon could have released a Noct with AF. It’s whether it could have been as good optically while fitting in the target design envelope.

And nobody has been able to release a lens as good as the Noct with AF so it’s anybody’s guess whether it could be done 4-5 years ago when Nikon designed the Noct. Zeiss obviously thought also that they couldn’t do the Otus with AF. Even the latest 100mm f1.4 (another amazing piece of glass in case you have used it).

So when 2 of the most talented lens design teams in the world decide that MF is a better option for their very best lenses I listen.

But I fully understand that many photographers prioritize the opportunities provided by AF over the optical gains.

Cheers,
Bernard

Jan 16, 2022 at 03:38 AM

_Gundam_
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

As well as some photographers prioritize the experience that a manual focus lens can give.

Jan 16, 2022 at 04:41 AM

Desmolicious
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

bernardl wrote:
You are not convinced this is the best lens currently available in that range of focal lengths?

Not remotely. The best lens is a lens that you will use. The best lens is the lens that gives incredible results in actual use not in theory on a test bench.
This is a fantastic lens for hobbyists who are not under any time deadlines to deliver. Who have the luxury to focus bracket each shot then pick out the one that is in focus and post it for likes.

Jan 16, 2022 at 08:41 AM

EdwardDye
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · Noct 0.95 Thread?

Yes, 50mm f1.2 S is great lens and it have AF.

I keep hearing the optical quality of this lens is so good, but where can I find some 100% crop on this vs the new Canon and Sony lenses? I really want to see this lens clearly crash Nikon 50 f1.2 and Sony 50GM and Canon RF 50L and 85L at 100% crop so I know Nikon give up AF in this lens is worth it, really people can say whatever but images show the truth.

Zeiss is a different story, they always make MF lens and they don't make AF camera bodies for those lens to go on, just like any new Leica M lenses coming out with only MF no one will be surprised and say how come Leica can't put AF in their M lens... Because their M camera bodies also don't have AF capabilities... but Nikon haven't really done MF lens for the last 30 years and all of their cameras have AF capabilities, so it's more about the system.

bernardl wrote:
Well the 50mm f1.2 S is plain outstanding and focuses very fast on the Z9.

The point isn’t as much whether Nikon could have released a Noct with AF. It’s whether it could have been as good optically while fitting in the target design envelope.

And nobody has been able to release a lens as good as the Noct with AF so it’s anybody’s guess whether it could be done 4-5 years ago when Nikon designed the Noct. Zeiss obviously thought also that they couldn’t do the Otus with AF. Even the latest 100mm f1.4 (another amazing piece of glass in case...Show more →

Jan 16, 2022 at 10:41 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 9 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 9 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.