[rawr]

USD $2,199.95 MSRP
Ouch.

But I guess a lens of those specs isn't going to be cheap to make. Even the Mitakon 135 f1.4 is more expensive than the Nikon, and it lacks AF.

[cali92rs]

+1
Its "characterful" if the price is right.
But for a modern lens at this price, I find it surprising to say the least.
Obviously something's gotta give with f1.4 such that optical vignetting occurs.



This lens is exactly the spec sheet, ego boosters that we the consumers seem to be driving the makers towards.
At the expense of the wallet, encumbrance and imo logical usage of lenses in more generalist real use situations.

Great as a lens one has a Sherpa hauling a few of them around during a trip.



It will catch attention of course (part of the reason why its made)

Yea...what Nikon should be making is 4 different variations of a 55-300mm lens.
That's what consumers really need.

[Mistral75]

Yea...what Nikon should be making is 4 different variations of a 55-300mm lens.
That's what consumers really need.

They are about to add two APS-C 70-300mm lenses to the 24x36 70-300mm they already propose :

Nikon AF-P DX Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED lens leaked online | Nikon Rumors

[pinholecam]

Yea...what Nikon should be making is 4 different variations of a 55-300mm lens.
That's what consumers really need.

Not sure if you used a lens like the Canon ltm 100/3.5, excellent small lens the size of perhaps 2 fingers bunched together.
The f3.5 may look like its 'inferior' on paper, but really excellent and portable lens.
Something that is good enough in most cases.
Good used close up for portraits and already sharp from f3.5, very sharp stopped down (eg. landscape purposes w/o breaking the back)


There are others like a Sonnar based 58mm, 85mm perhaps.

Also a 15/4 for landscape, as well as 21/4, not every landscape shooter wants f2.8 for their UWA.
Small 20-35/4 type lens too.

APO lenses.

Maybe even a 'mirror up' only symmetric type UWA.

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 07-28-2016 at 06:00 AM.

[zapp]

A nice lens indeed!

Nikon comes out of the box first with something really new. A 1.4/105 mm. There was no demand for this lens, but in my opinion they cover this base to show off against Sigma. If Sigma can come out with a new Art 85 and Art 135, it will be tough competition. No major player wants to come out with seomthing taht may be had for half the price from Sigma a week after. Expect updates for Nikon 2/135 and Canon 1.2/85 and 2/135 after Sigma shows something new for photokina or shortly after. Even Pentax is not talking about any of the upcoming lenses right now... and a 1.4 35/50/85 should be in the pipeline somehow.
And Tamron only showed 1.8 lenses with 35, 45, 85 mm the gimmick is inbuild SR for the others.

Someone has to be first. NIce move by Nikon and spec and sample-wise the lens fills a gap.

[JinDesu]

The cateye bokeh is distracting as heck...

[beholder3]

a few samples:

Boy, #2 and #3 are disgusting looking. That non-bokeh looks like a child tried postprocessing. Better delete it right away than show it around.
So you can only get 50% of ok shots with that lens?

Maybe they sent the intern to make those shots and it's not the lens' fault to produce such rubbish.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-02-2016 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Edited mild vulgarity

[Jonathan Mac]

DFA70-200 on a K1 does the same.

Pentax built a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom that in fact has an aperture that opens two stops wider than advertised in what would be a massive record-breaking coup, and didn't tell anyone?????!?

On a 2k dollar portrait specialty lens I wouod have ex0ected perfectly round bokeh in shots 2 and 3 reguardless of where the hoghlight is in the frame.

Hard to justify that price at any level of performance to be honest though. For a portrait prime lens anyway.

On the first point, the bokeh looks great to me. There's no need for it to be perfectly round.

On the second point, you're dead on. Pro photographers will laugh at the existence of this lens,and the fools who will buy it. Gearheads with far more money than sense will buy it and take bad photos with it, all wide open, for at least six months before someone points out to them that a photo with everything in focus would be nice once in a while. Then they'll go in a huff for six months.

[biz-engineer]

Pentax built a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom that in fact has an aperture that opens two stops wider than advertised in what would be a massive record-breaking coup, and didn't tell anyone?????!?

At 200mm f2.8 , the hole is as large as 100mm f1.4

[D1N0]

People please stop calling bokeh highlight's bokeh. It's just one aspect of bokeh. I don't see why cat eyes are bad anyway. Just because people told you they are bad? Its delusional.

[SpecialK]

200mm f2.8 = 100mm f1.4

But 2.8 /= 1.4, so there's that :-)

[RobA_Oz]

I agree that the cat's eye highlights look a bit odd, and the mere fact that some people think they're OK and others don't means there'll be caution exercised by some Nikon-using professionals in how they use this lens, or even if they use it at all.

That aside, I can't help wondering what difference in IQ there would be between this and a similar f1.8 lens, because there would almost certainly be a significant difference in price. It's a nice bit of hardware, on paper, but I do wonder if its value lies more in marketing than in sales.

[HopelessTogger]

I'd sooner have a system with a limited number of high quality essential primes and zooms and be done.

As much as having every possible lens for every possible photographic challenge would be wonderful, I'd sooner buy an elephant. Always wanted an elephant and they cost a fortune in bananas.

[Venom3300]

On the first point, the bokeh looks great to me. There's no need for it to be perfectly round.

On the second point, you're dead on. Pro photographers will laugh at the existence of this lens,and the fools who will buy it. Gearheads with far more money than sense will buy it and take bad photos with it, all wide open, for at least six months before someone points out to them that a photo with everything in focus would be nice once in a while. Then they'll go in a huff for six months.

1- Rounded aperture blades and 7-9 aperture blades have come about because round bokeh is more natural and pleasing to look at. It may not bother you to spend 2k on a lens with this type of design flaw, but it certainly will dissuade others.

2. You're dead wrong. I didn't say they wouldn't sell them. Sure- somebody with a lot of money thats obsessed with shallow depth of field and late apertures will buy them. But from a photagraphic standpoint, this lens has little to offer that isn't covered by other lenses (unless you are in love with shallow field cat eyes)- so why bother.

[outsider]

I saw this. Nikon is on top of it when it comes to everything. If I had money to burn, I maaay consider getting one. But I love the 85mm 1.4D. I feel theres more control in focusing from the cameras body. And the older lenses give a color, bokeh and overall character in the photo that is not possible with newer lenses. I think I would prefer the 135mm f2d to this. I like old school