Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of their users

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Oct 17, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Oct 17, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 17/10/2013 6:11 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses various companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal lengths. Now we have a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I wonder how Nikonians will like it?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af-s-58mm-f1-4g/7
    >

    I'll hazard a guess that they'll love it - so long as it delivers.
    It's cheap compared with Leica glass.
    Me, Oct 17, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:06:13 AM UTC-4, Me wrote:
    > On 17/10/2013 6:11 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >
    > > Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses various companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal lengths. Now we have a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I wonder how Nikonians will like it?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af-s-58mm-f1-4g/7

    >
    > >

    >
    > I'll hazard a guess that they'll love it - so long as it delivers.
    >
    > It's cheap compared with Leica glass.


    I'm trying to imagine what Nikon would charge if they ever built another Noct Nikkor.
    RichA, Oct 17, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 10/17/2013 1:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    > Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses various companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal lengths. Now we have a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I wonder how Nikonians will like it?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af-s-58mm-f1-4g/7
    >


    If you think itcosts too mucn, don't buy it.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 17, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <l3nuom$oe5$>,
    says...
    >
    > On 17/10/2013 6:11 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > > Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses various companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal lengths. Now we have a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I wonder how Nikonians will like it?
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af-s-58mm-f1-4g/7
    > >

    > I'll hazard a guess that they'll love it - so long as it delivers.
    > It's cheap compared with Leica glass.


    In any case, 58mm made less sense on a 35mm camera than it does on an
    APS-C, on which it it is a moderate tele with a focal length appropriate
    for a portrait lens--the large aperture would also be helpful in that
    application.
    J. Clarke, Oct 17, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses various
    > companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal lengths. Now we have
    > a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I wonder how Nikonians will like
    > it?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af
    > -s-58mm-f1-4g/7


    "horrifically"... It costs about the same as their 35mm/1.4G, which is
    an amazing lens.. Why is this price horrific?

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Oct 17, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:23:45 AM UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses various

    >
    > > companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal lengths. Now wehave

    >
    > > a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I wonder how Nikonians will like

    >
    > > it?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af

    >
    > > -s-58mm-f1-4g/7

    >
    >
    >
    > "horrifically"... It costs about the same as their 35mm/1.4G, which is
    >
    > an amazing lens.. Why is this price horrific?


    The Nikon 35mm isn't much better than the Sigma (if at all) or even the $450 Samyang, at least optically. I figured they priced that one like they did because the older 35mm was so awful and most users would dump them, no matter what the price of the new one.
    RichA, Oct 17, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > > "horrifically"... It costs about the same as their 35mm/1.4G, which is
    > > an amazing lens.. Why is this price horrific?

    >
    > The Nikon 35mm isn't much better than the Sigma


    Haha!



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Oct 18, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 17/10/2013 18:40, RichA wrote:
    []
    > The Nikon 35mm isn't much better than the Sigma (if at all) or even the $450 Samyang, at least optically. I figured they priced that one like they did because the older 35mm was so awful and most users would dump them, no matter what the price of the new one.


    Doesn't the Samyang lack auto-focus?

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 18, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 17/10/2013 7:26 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > On Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:06:13 AM UTC-4, Me wrote:
    >> On 17/10/2013 6:11 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses various companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal lengths. Now we have a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I wonder how Nikonians will like it?

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af-s-58mm-f1-4g/7

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I'll hazard a guess that they'll love it - so long as it delivers.
    >>
    >> It's cheap compared with Leica glass.

    >
    > I'm trying to imagine what Nikon would charge if they ever built another Noct Nikkor.
    >


    http://i.imgur.com/5cyIp3h.png
    50mm 1.4g left / 58mm 1.4g right.
    It should be pretty good.

    Given that light gathering is probably severely compromised on digital
    sensors anyway, as discussed here:
    http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/F-stop-blues
    then the advantage of f1.2 for low-light shooting may not be - or at
    best - only be partially achieved, so unless there's some other
    advantage, uber-fast lenses are probably a false economy.

    If Nikon's MTF figures for the 58mm f1.4 hold up, and if there's low
    LOCA, focus shift, distortion, and great bokeh as claimed, then there
    will be plenty of well-heeled buyers lining up.

    Objective, comparative testing of the Noct Nikkor is hard to find, the
    legend may be overstated:
    http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ew8i
    Me, Oct 18, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <l3r05m$hca$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > > I'm trying to imagine what Nikon would charge if they ever built another
    > > Noct Nikkor.
    > >

    >
    > http://i.imgur.com/5cyIp3h.png
    > 50mm 1.4g left / 58mm 1.4g right.
    > It should be pretty good.


    For comparison, here's Nikon's 14-24/2.8 MTF:

    http://i.imgur.com/hqGVdDl.gif

    Which is regarded as one of the sharpest lenses you can get today.




    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Oct 18, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    Mort Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    PeterN wrote:
    > On 10/17/2013 1:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    >> Not long ago, I read a Nikon user criticizing the old 55-58mm lenses
    >> various companies brought out in the 70's as "illogical" focal
    >> lengths. Now we have a horrifically expensive 58mm from Nikon. I
    >> wonder how Nikonians will like it?
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/17/in-pictures-nikons-large-and-pricey-af-s-58mm-f1-4g/7
    >>
    >>

    >
    > If you think itcosts too mucn, don't buy it.
    >



    Right on. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln upon his selling books, This is
    a lens that people who like this kind of lens will like.


    Mort Linder
    Mort, Oct 18, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 18/10/2013 11:23 p.m., Sandman wrote:
    > In article <l3r05m$hca$>, Me <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm trying to imagine what Nikon would charge if they ever built another
    >>> Noct Nikkor.
    >>>

    >>
    >> http://i.imgur.com/5cyIp3h.png
    >> 50mm 1.4g left / 58mm 1.4g right.
    >> It should be pretty good.

    >
    > For comparison, here's Nikon's 14-24/2.8 MTF:
    >
    > http://i.imgur.com/hqGVdDl.gif
    >
    > Which is regarded as one of the sharpest lenses you can get today.
    >
    >

    But it's an UWA and a zoom. Edge performance may seem less than stellar
    on Nikon's MTF chart, but compared to anything else, it's probably quite
    exceptional.
    That MTF chart is also at the "tele" end. Photozone tests show the 14-24
    to be better at the wide end:
    http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1
    The 14-24 raises a point about relative pricing, as it's a far more
    complex optical and mechanical design than the 58mm 1.4, and uses an
    even larger aspherical front element ("PGM" type - presumably the 58/1.4
    also uses a PGM front element), but doesn't cost much more.
    Me, Oct 18, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 10/18/2013 6:45 PM, Me wrote:

    <snip>


    >>

    > But it's an UWA and a zoom. Edge performance may seem less than stellar
    > on Nikon's MTF chart, but compared to anything else, it's probably quite
    > exceptional.
    > That MTF chart is also at the "tele" end. Photozone tests show the 14-24
    > to be better at the wide end:
    > http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1
    > The 14-24 raises a point about relative pricing, as it's a far more
    > complex optical and mechanical design than the 58mm 1.4, and uses an
    > even larger aspherical front element ("PGM" type - presumably the 58/1.4
    > also uses a PGM front element), but doesn't cost much more.
    >


    i had considered the 14-24, but decided on the 15-35. The latter is
    easier to carry, and still reasonably sharp. I am quite happy with it.
    Also, it takes filters.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <l3sdm2$b15$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > >> http://i.imgur.com/5cyIp3h.png
    > >> 50mm 1.4g left / 58mm 1.4g right.
    > >> It should be pretty good.

    > >
    > > For comparison, here's Nikon's 14-24/2.8 MTF:
    > >
    > > http://i.imgur.com/hqGVdDl.gif
    > >
    > > Which is regarded as one of the sharpest lenses you can get today.

    >
    > But it's an UWA and a zoom.


    Indeed, which is why it's so impressive :)

    > Edge performance may seem less than stellar on Nikon's MTF chart, but
    > compared to anything else, it's probably quite exceptional.
    > That MTF chart is also at the "tele" end. Photozone tests show the 14-24
    > to be better at the wide end:
    > http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1


    That's why I choose the tele MTF. the Wide is even more amazing.

    > The 14-24 raises a point about relative pricing, as it's a far more
    > complex optical and mechanical design than the 58mm 1.4, and uses an
    > even larger aspherical front element ("PGM" type - presumably the 58/1.4
    > also uses a PGM front element), but doesn't cost much more.


    But how much did it cost when introduced?


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Oct 19, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > On 10/18/2013 6:45 PM, Me wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    > >>

    > > But it's an UWA and a zoom. Edge performance may seem less than stellar
    > > on Nikon's MTF chart, but compared to anything else, it's probably quite
    > > exceptional.
    > > That MTF chart is also at the "tele" end. Photozone tests show the 14-24
    > > to be better at the wide end:
    > > http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1
    > > The 14-24 raises a point about relative pricing, as it's a far more
    > > complex optical and mechanical design than the 58mm 1.4, and uses an
    > > even larger aspherical front element ("PGM" type - presumably the 58/1.4
    > > also uses a PGM front element), but doesn't cost much more.
    > >

    >
    > i had considered the 14-24, but decided on the 15-35. The latter is
    > easier to carry, and still reasonably sharp. I am quite happy with it.
    > Also, it takes filters.


    16-35


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Oct 19, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 19/10/2013 9:13 p.m., Sandman wrote:
    > In article <l3sdm2$b15$>, Me <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>> http://i.imgur.com/5cyIp3h.png
    >>>> 50mm 1.4g left / 58mm 1.4g right.
    >>>> It should be pretty good.
    >>>
    >>> For comparison, here's Nikon's 14-24/2.8 MTF:
    >>>
    >>> http://i.imgur.com/hqGVdDl.gif
    >>>
    >>> Which is regarded as one of the sharpest lenses you can get today.

    >>
    >> But it's an UWA and a zoom.

    >
    > Indeed, which is why it's so impressive :)
    >
    >> Edge performance may seem less than stellar on Nikon's MTF chart, but
    >> compared to anything else, it's probably quite exceptional.
    >> That MTF chart is also at the "tele" end. Photozone tests show the 14-24
    >> to be better at the wide end:
    >> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1

    >
    > That's why I choose the tele MTF. the Wide is even more amazing.
    >
    >> The 14-24 raises a point about relative pricing, as it's a far more
    >> complex optical and mechanical design than the 58mm 1.4, and uses an
    >> even larger aspherical front element ("PGM" type - presumably the 58/1.4
    >> also uses a PGM front element), but doesn't cost much more.

    >
    > But how much did it cost when introduced?
    >
    >

    I think it always cost about US$1800 - the price was and still is pretty
    remarkable.
    I haven't seen or read anything concerning about sample variation /
    mechanical failure either (but you definitely wouldn't want to drop
    one), so Nikon seem to have excelled in design and production/QA.
    Me, Oct 19, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <l3ttav$2im$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > > But how much did it cost when introduced?

    >
    > I think it always cost about US$1800 - the price was and still is pretty
    > remarkable.
    > I haven't seen or read anything concerning about sample variation /
    > mechanical failure either (but you definitely wouldn't want to drop
    > one), so Nikon seem to have excelled in design and production/QA.


    Yeah, the entire dream team (14-24, 24-70, 70-120) is amazingly well
    built and is really top of the line


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Oct 19, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Nikon, pretty desperate to squeeze the last dollar out of theirusers

    On 10/19/2013 4:20 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 10/18/2013 6:45 PM, Me wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>
    >>> But it's an UWA and a zoom. Edge performance may seem less than stellar
    >>> on Nikon's MTF chart, but compared to anything else, it's probably quite
    >>> exceptional.
    >>> That MTF chart is also at the "tele" end. Photozone tests show the 14-24
    >>> to be better at the wide end:
    >>> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1
    >>> The 14-24 raises a point about relative pricing, as it's a far more
    >>> complex optical and mechanical design than the 58mm 1.4, and uses an
    >>> even larger aspherical front element ("PGM" type - presumably the 58/1.4
    >>> also uses a PGM front element), but doesn't cost much more.
    >>>

    >>
    >> i had considered the 14-24, but decided on the 15-35. The latter is
    >> easier to carry, and still reasonably sharp. I am quite happy with it.
    >> Also, it takes filters.

    >
    > 16-35
    >
    >

    Typo. My point is the same.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ralph Wade Phillips

    Re: Pretty Please Peer2Peer need help Pretty Please

    Ralph Wade Phillips, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    534
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Jul 6, 2003
  2. John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions

    Re: Pretty Please Peer2Peer need help Pretty Please

    John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    574
    John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions
    Jul 6, 2003
  3. Imhotep

    Feds put squeeze on Internet firms

    Imhotep, May 31, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    Imhotep
    May 31, 2006
  4. Harvey

    Re: One more Pretty Face - Pretty face9.jpg [1/1]

    Harvey, Nov 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    441
    Pepys
    Nov 4, 2004
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    370
    John McWilliams
    Jun 21, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page