Ouch - Lenstip says new $1700 Nikon 58mm is trash

rawr · 02-15-2014, 02:32 AM

I like Lenstip. They test lenses very well, and write in a straight-forward, easy to read manner. So I track their reviews of new lenses.

Their recent review of the new Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G, a $1700 prime, was, however, exceptionally scathing in it's conclusion:

Quote:

Perhaps I am naive but I admit when Zeiss announced their Otus 1.4/55 and Nikon – the Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G I though we were going to deal with two lenses which were a match for each other. It seems, though, that only Zeiss was serious about it and Nikon was joking all along, trying to sell you a rough piece of trash for a lot of money under a cover of a storied Nikon legacy.

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G review - Summary - Lenstip.com

Ouch!!!

dcBear78 · 02-15-2014, 04:00 AM

How will they ever sell advertising with reviews like that?

Dariusz · 02-15-2014, 04:12 AM

That's pretty disappointing, I was expecting much more from this lens

Na Horuk · 02-15-2014, 06:02 AM

Ouch.. and people complain that the 20-40mm ltd got a harsh review!

Edit: But seriously, 58mm f1.4? Youd think Nikon (or any brand, at this point) would knock it out of the park.

rawr · 02-15-2014, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

and people complain that the 20-40mm ltd got a harsh review!

Hehe. That's what I thought too. Pentax got off lightly.

Nikon may be able to save some face by claiming the test lens was badly de-centred or something, I guess.

jogiba · 02-15-2014, 06:55 AM

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G Image resolution :

Pentax smc FA 50 mm f/1.4 Image resolution :

I will stick with the Pentax smc 50mm F1.4

**Rondec** · 02-15-2014, 08:08 AM

I wonder if it was a bad copy situation. I don't know how many copies they test, but certainly, you see some odd numbers with tests. DXO Mark tests the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as awesome on the D7100 and decent on the K3. Have to assume the difference was in the copy of the lens. Get a good copy and you are writing the headline "best lens ever!" Get a bad copy and you write "This lens is garbage!"

**interested_observer** · 02-15-2014, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I wonder if it was a bad copy situation. I don't know how many copies they test, but certainly, you see some odd numbers with tests. DXO Mark tests the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as awesome on the D7100 and decent on the K3. Have to assume the difference was in the copy of the lens. Get a good copy and you are writing the headline "best lens ever!" Get a bad copy and you write "This lens is garbage!"

So, as soon as Nikon management reads the review, a brand new, cherry picked, sample will be re-aligned, tested on the optical bench, fine tuned, QC'd, very carefully double packed and delivered to FedEX for overnight shipping. In parallel email will be going out, suggesting that some how it was a bad copy that was somehow damaged in shipping, and that a new copy - a more representative sample is on its way.

**Rondec** · 02-15-2014, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by interested_observer

So, as soon as Nikon management reads the review, a brand new, cherry picked, sample will be re-aligned, tested on the optical bench, fine tuned, QC'd, very carefully double packed and delivered to FedEX for overnight shipping. In parallel email will be going out, suggesting that some how it was a bad copy that was somehow damaged in shipping, and that a new copy - a more representative sample is on its way.

Sure.

I just don't know how much to truly believe these tests. Truth if probably that the "best" lenses just happened to have awesome copies, while the "not so good" have bad copies. Look at testing the FA 43 on the K10 at Photozone and on the K5 later. Different copies just test differently, but the problem to me is that there is this much copy variation, even on high end lenses.

**arv** · 02-15-2014, 08:27 AM

Other reviews aren't so harsh - when I saw this picture decided, that it's a lens I would like to have. Such smoothness wide opened, and it is really sharp enough.

A.

tuco · 02-15-2014, 08:30 AM

It's a portrait lens. Very sharp in the center stopped down some and good bokeh. It fails pixel peeping lens reviews that don't measure those things. Therefore the lens is bad. Meanwhile, owners of the lens love it for those properties. Go figure.

**Rondec** · 02-15-2014, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by tuco

It's a portrait lens. Very sharp in the center stopped down some and good bokeh. It fails pixel peeping lens reviews that don't measure those things. Therefore the lens is bad. Meanwhile, owners of the lens love it for those properties. Go figure.

Well, I think the issue with the copy tested, is even the center resolution isn't great till about f4. For the cost, you would expect better center resolution at f2 and f2.8.

tuco · 02-15-2014, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G Image resolution :

Where is the chart for bokeh?

---------- Post added 02-15-14 at 07:43 ----------

Originally posted by Rondec

Well, I think the issue with the copy tested, is even the center resolution isn't great till about f4. For the cost, you would expect better center resolution at f2 and f2.8.

I have the 58/1.4. And I have a lot of lenses for 4 camera systems (brands). And it has some of the best bokeh of the bunch. It's my people and night lens and I highly rate it amongst all my other lenses. And you guys that are all into nothing but total sharpness will never understand this lens.

**Rondec** · 02-15-2014, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by tuco

Where is the chart for bokeh?

---------- Post added 02-15-14 at 07:43 ----------

I have the 58/1.4. And I have a lot of lenses for 4 camera systems (brands). And it has some of the best bokeh of the bunch. It's my people and night lens and I highly rate it amongst all my other lenses. And you guys that are all into nothing but total sharpness will never understand this lens.

I'm really not. I am someone who routinely argues against these ways of analyzing lens performance, because I don't believe it tells the whole story. But I also think Lens Tip probably tested a poor copy and there are better ones out there.

tuco · 02-15-2014, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I'm really not. I am someone who routinely argues against these ways of analyzing lens performance, because I don't believe it tells the whole story. But I also think Lens Tip probably tested a poor copy and there are better ones out there.

Lens reviews rarely rank good portrait lenses highly. Their attributes are contrary to what they test for except center sharpness. However, I agree this Nikon 58/1.4 does get low marks for price/performance category ( which is probably what makes it so unlikeable). Nikon should have just restricted the aperture to f1.8 and called it a f1.8 lens since f1.4 is really not usable at all.

02-15-2014, 02:32 AM	#1
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Ouch - Lenstip says new $1700 Nikon 58mm is trash I like Lenstip. They test lenses very well, and write in a straight-forward, easy to read manner. So I track their reviews of new lenses. Their recent review of the new Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G, a $1700 prime, was, however, exceptionally scathing in it's conclusion: Quote: Perhaps I am naive but I admit when Zeiss announced their Otus 1.4/55 and Nikon – the Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G I though we were going to deal with two lenses which were a match for each other. It seems, though, that only Zeiss was serious about it and Nikon was joking all along, trying to sell you a rough piece of trash for a lot of money under a cover of a storied Nikon legacy. Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G review - Summary - Lenstip.com Ouch!!!

02-15-2014, 04:12 AM	#3
Dariusz Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 97	That's pretty disappointing, I was expecting much more from this lens Last edited by Dariusz; 02-15-2014 at 06:34 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon Germany says full frame is their focus now	falconeye	Pentax Full Frame	109	01-28-2014 02:08 PM
So this is fungus right? Time for the trash bin?	Ryan Trevisol	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	05-19-2011 06:25 AM
For Sale - Sold: Like New Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL II; Nikon Mount (US)	luke0622	Sold Items	2	02-23-2011 10:06 AM
Review of new Bigma now on LensTip.com	infosyn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-19-2010 09:34 PM
Trash the kit lens and get a new one	THAN THE SWORD	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-12-2008 07:04 PM

02-15-2014, 04:00 AM	#2
dcBear78 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Gladstone, QLD Photos: Gallery Posts: 823	How will they ever sell advertising with reviews like that?

02-15-2014, 06:02 AM	#4
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Ouch.. and people complain that the 20-40mm ltd got a harsh review! Edit: But seriously, 58mm f1.4? Youd think Nikon (or any brand, at this point) would knock it out of the park.

02-15-2014, 06:54 AM	#5
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913 Original Poster	Originally posted by Na Horuk and people complain that the 20-40mm ltd got a harsh review! Hehe. That's what I thought too. Pentax got off lightly. Nikon may be able to save some face by claiming the test lens was badly de-centred or something, I guess.

02-15-2014, 06:55 AM	#6
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G Image resolution : Pentax smc FA 50 mm f/1.4 Image resolution : I will stick with the Pentax smc 50mm F1.4

02-15-2014, 08:08 AM	#7
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,657	I wonder if it was a bad copy situation. I don't know how many copies they test, but certainly, you see some odd numbers with tests. DXO Mark tests the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as awesome on the D7100 and decent on the K3. Have to assume the difference was in the copy of the lens. Get a good copy and you are writing the headline "best lens ever!" Get a bad copy and you write "This lens is garbage!"

02-15-2014, 08:19 AM	#8
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Originally posted by Rondec I wonder if it was a bad copy situation. I don't know how many copies they test, but certainly, you see some odd numbers with tests. DXO Mark tests the Sigma 35mm f1.4 as awesome on the D7100 and decent on the K3. Have to assume the difference was in the copy of the lens. Get a good copy and you are writing the headline "best lens ever!" Get a bad copy and you write "This lens is garbage!" So, as soon as Nikon management reads the review, a brand new, cherry picked, sample will be re-aligned, tested on the optical bench, fine tuned, QC'd, very carefully double packed and delivered to FedEX for overnight shipping. In parallel email will be going out, suggesting that some how it was a bad copy that was somehow damaged in shipping, and that a new copy - a more representative sample is on its way.

02-15-2014, 08:27 AM	#9
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,657	Originally posted by interested_observer So, as soon as Nikon management reads the review, a brand new, cherry picked, sample will be re-aligned, tested on the optical bench, fine tuned, QC'd, very carefully double packed and delivered to FedEX for overnight shipping. In parallel email will be going out, suggesting that some how it was a bad copy that was somehow damaged in shipping, and that a new copy - a more representative sample is on its way. Sure. I just don't know how much to truly believe these tests. Truth if probably that the "best" lenses just happened to have awesome copies, while the "not so good" have bad copies. Look at testing the FA 43 on the K10 at Photozone and on the K5 later. Different copies just test differently, but the problem to me is that there is this much copy variation, even on high end lenses.

02-15-2014, 08:27 AM	#10
arv Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 413	Other reviews aren't so harsh - when I saw this picture decided, that it's a lens I would like to have. Such smoothness wide opened, and it is really sharp enough. A.

02-15-2014, 08:30 AM	#11
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,027	It's a portrait lens. Very sharp in the center stopped down some and good bokeh. It fails pixel peeping lens reviews that don't measure those things. Therefore the lens is bad. Meanwhile, owners of the lens love it for those properties. Go figure.

02-15-2014, 08:37 AM	#12
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,657	Originally posted by tuco It's a portrait lens. Very sharp in the center stopped down some and good bokeh. It fails pixel peeping lens reviews that don't measure those things. Therefore the lens is bad. Meanwhile, owners of the lens love it for those properties. Go figure. Well, I think the issue with the copy tested, is even the center resolution isn't great till about f4. For the cost, you would expect better center resolution at f2 and f2.8.

02-15-2014, 08:39 AM	#13
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,027	Originally posted by jogiba Nikon Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G Image resolution : Where is the chart for bokeh? ---------- Post added 02-15-14 at 07:43 ---------- Originally posted by Rondec Well, I think the issue with the copy tested, is even the center resolution isn't great till about f4. For the cost, you would expect better center resolution at f2 and f2.8. I have the 58/1.4. And I have a lot of lenses for 4 camera systems (brands). And it has some of the best bokeh of the bunch. It's my people and night lens and I highly rate it amongst all my other lenses. And you guys that are all into nothing but total sharpness will never understand this lens.

02-15-2014, 08:49 AM	#14
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,657	Originally posted by tuco Where is the chart for bokeh? ---------- Post added 02-15-14 at 07:43 ---------- I have the 58/1.4. And I have a lot of lenses for 4 camera systems (brands). And it has some of the best bokeh of the bunch. It's my people and night lens and I highly rate it amongst all my other lenses. And you guys that are all into nothing but total sharpness will never understand this lens. I'm really not. I am someone who routinely argues against these ways of analyzing lens performance, because I don't believe it tells the whole story. But I also think Lens Tip probably tested a poor copy and there are better ones out there.

02-15-2014, 09:08 AM	#15
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,027	Originally posted by Rondec I'm really not. I am someone who routinely argues against these ways of analyzing lens performance, because I don't believe it tells the whole story. But I also think Lens Tip probably tested a poor copy and there are better ones out there. Lens reviews rarely rank good portrait lenses highly. Their attributes are contrary to what they test for except center sharpness. However, I agree this Nikon 58/1.4 does get low marks for price/performance category ( which is probably what makes it so unlikeable). Nikon should have just restricted the aperture to f1.8 and called it a f1.8 lens since f1.4 is really not usable at all.