Got $8k in spare change?

Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Because that's what the 58/0.95 is rumored to cost.

I honestly don't get this lens. It's enormous, heavy, ungodly expensive, and manual focus. IMO, Nikon wasted time and R&D resources to create a lens that'll barely sell (any estimates on annual sales?) Personally, if Nikon wanted to have a "halo" lens, I think they should've spent that time and money bringing the autofocusing 50/1.2 to market first (or the 70-200/2.8, which is a money-making lens for professional photographers).

Anyone planning on picking one up?
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
9,336
Location
Thunder Bay Ontario Canada
Because that's what the 58/0.95 is rumored to cost.

I honestly don't get this lens. It's enormous, heavy, ungodly expensive, and manual focus. IMO, Nikon wasted time and R&D resources to create a lens that'll barely sell (any estimates on annual sales?) Personally, if Nikon wanted to have a "halo" lens, I think they should've spent that time and money bringing the autofocusing 50/1.2 to market first (or the 70-200/2.8, which is a money-making lens for professional photographers).

Anyone planning on picking one up?
Not for me...but...there must be a market for this lens somewhere otherwise why?? I would be curious in learning about the selling points for a 58/095.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Not for me...but...there must be a market for this lens somewhere otherwise why?? I would be curious in learning about the selling points for a 58/095.
Honestly, the only selling point I can think of is Nikon can say “look what we can do!”

For anyone that’s shot an f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens on a FF body, they’re aware of how thin the DoF is at those apertures. Going even shallower makes it even more difficult (especially considering you must now focus because it’s MF only).

I really don’t understand the lens, other than the fact that Nikon can brag about having such a lens (just don’t ask them to provide sales data of said lens).
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,068
Location
Upstate SC
Total waste of R&D.
Sure hope the mount was not enlarged to enable this "halo" product - it's already too large.
This was an originally announced product for the Z series. It’s totally a halo product, but no more outrageous than the 300/2 and 1200-1700 zoom from Nikon when they effectively owned the pro camera market. As much hype as this lens got at its initial development announcement, I’m surprised it took this long to get it out. I hope to someday get to spend a little time with one - though I haven’t the need or budget to buy one. It does concern me a little, though, how they will price the 50/1.2 on the roadmap, because that’s the one I want. “It’s a bargain at a third the cost of the Noct...”. I sure hope that’s not the direction this is headed...
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,068
Location
Upstate SC
Bragging rights? Perhaps artsy video utilizing almost no DOF? Stupidity? For people with more money than sense? Masochists?

I'll wait for a refurb... (just joking).
Go look for a Nikkor 300/2 or the 1200-1700 zoom. They were special order lenses, and Nikon did, in fact, sell a few. They were eye-wateringly expensive then, and their current value eclipses the original. People line up to bid on them on the rare occasions one shows up.
 
Huh, I was afraid that the new lens would totally destroy the value of my original 58mm Noct.... Maybe not after all! The original Noct works on all other Nikons, the F-Mounts, and can produce some really interesting results.... I'll admit that in the years I've had it, I really have not used it all that much to take full advantage of just what it can do....
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
40
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Real Name
Jake
Before this announcement, I was actually slightly interested, as I believed it would be no more than $5000. Still expensive, but somewhat justifiable given its status as a halo product. However, at this price, I think it should’ve been autofocus and maybe even f/0.65 (which, if I recall correctly, is the maximum aperture Nikon claims Z autofocus can support).
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,076
Location
Los Angeles, USA
They spent all this R&D for this lens, but couldn't add a shutter button to the Nikon Z battery grip? :rolleyes::D:p

I'm sure it'll be awesome though, but too rich for my blood unless it's like a 400mm 2.8 or something that can make money!
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
They spent all this R&D for this lens, but couldn't add a shutter button to the Nikon Z battery grip? :rolleyes::D:p

I'm sure it'll be awesome though, but too rich for my blood unless it's like a 400mm 2.8 or something that can make money!
The thing is, the 400/2.8 is a money maker, as there really isn’t a lens out there that renders like it.

Is the rendering between a 58/0.95 and 50/1.2 really different enough to support the difference in cost? Personally, I don’t think so.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom