Nikon's unexceptional 58mm f/1.4 lens price is ridiculous

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 31, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Dec 31, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    android Guest

    If people pay that for then that it's worth.
     
    android, Dec 31, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : There is nothing in the tests of this thing that even begin to justify a
    : $500 price let alone $1700. I'm getting worried about Nikon, trying to get
    : this kind of money for a good but hardly great lens smacks of desperation
    : for money.
    : http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/1...medium=text-comment&ref=comments_0_0#comments

    I think that's a simplistic conclusion to draw. You could say the same thing
    with equal plausibility if instead Nikon had slashed their prices. A more
    nuanced view might be that their production costs are getting out of control,
    resulting in products that are uncompetitive at the breakeven point.

    A lot of Nikon's and Canon's cameras and lenses seem unnaturally expensive
    lately. Is an explanation to be found in current exchange rates against the
    yen? Just asking; I haven't been paying attention to exchange rates at all.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 31, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    If the dollar fell that much, the U.S. would be bankrupt. IMO, a 50-58mm lens that has coma, noticeable CA wide open and doesn't maximize sharpness until f/8.0 is NOT worth that kind of money.
     
    RichA, Dec 31, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    I think the explanation is found in the ongoing collapse of the
    consumer-camera market, which supposedly is down more than 40 percent
    from a year ago. Interchangeable-lens camera sales are down less, only
    about 18 percent, but since the consumer camera sales volume is several
    times the interchangeable lens sales volume they were covering a higher
    percentage of overhead.

    Japanese being Japanese, they're unlikely to have a mass layoff or
    multiple factory closings until conditions force them to it and until
    that happens they are having to pay for a lot of capacity that they
    aren't able to use right now.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 31, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    And here I thought Pentax was nuts for charging $800 for a 55mm f/1.4...
     
    RichA, Dec 31, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Pentacon lenses are overrated. The best 58mm f/1.4 (not that there are a lot of them around) I've used was a Voigtlander Nokton, but it had ugly bokeh wide open. However, it was very good at f/4.0.
     
    RichA, Dec 31, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Maybe they included the field curvature to accentuate portraits? Who knows.
     
    RichA, Dec 31, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:58:12 PM UTC-5, Floyd L.
    And if it's not a macro lens, why
    Are you serious? Field curvature is present at any distance, not just macro distances, which is why telescopes being used at infinity use correction lenses for field curvature in photography.
     
    RichA, Jan 1, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Simple. Don't buy it. Obviously, many other people feel that the lens is
    worth the money. If enough don't , then Nikon will either drop the lens
    from its line, or lower the price.
    I am quite happy that you don't make those decisions for Nikon, or Canon.
     
    PeterN, Jan 1, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    :
    :
    : On 12/31/13 7:47 PM, in article
    : [email protected], "Savageduck"
    :
    : > On 2013-12-31 23:40:47 +0000, RichA <> said:
    : >
    : >> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:06:46 PM UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
    : >>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:34:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    : >>>
    : >>> wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:16:06 AM UTC-5, Robert Coe wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 21:39:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    : >>>>> wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> : There is nothing in the tests of this thing that even begin to justify a
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> : $500 price let alone $1700. I'm getting worried about Nikon, trying to
    : >>>>> get
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> : this kind of money for a good but hardly great lens smacks of
    : >>>>> desperation
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> : for money.
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> :
    : >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/12/30/premium-prime-nikon-af-s-nikkor-58
    : >>>>> mm-f-1-4g-in-depth-review?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&
    : >>>>> utm_medium=text-comment&ref=comments_0_0#comments
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : > I
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>> think that's a simplistic conclusion to draw. You could say the same thing
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> with equal plausibility if instead Nikon had slashed their prices. A more
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> nuanced view might be that their production costs are getting out of
    : >>>>> control,
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> resulting in products that are uncompetitive at the breakeven point.
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> A lot of Nikon's and Canon's cameras and lenses seem unnaturally expensive
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> lately. Is an explanation to be found in current exchange rates against
    : >>>>> the
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> yen? Just asking; I haven't been paying attention to exchange rates at
    : >>>>> all.
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>>> Bob
    : >>>
    : >>>>
    : >>>
    : >>>> If the dollar fell that much, the U.S. would be bankrupt. IMO, a
    : >>>> 50-58mm lens that has coma, noticeable CA wide open and doesn't
    : >>>> maximize sharpness until f/8.0 is NOT worth that kind of money.
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>> I think you are being overly hard on it.
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>> The sharpness problem appears to be due to curvature of the focal
    : >>>
    : >>> plane. If you a photographing square on to a flat surface, you can get
    : >>>
    : >>> the middle sharp or the corners sharp, but not both. In the real
    : >>>
    : >>> world, if there is something to focus on at the centre of the image,
    : >>>
    : >>> it will sharp. If there is something else to focus on in the corners,
    : >>>
    : >>> it will be sharp too. Paragraphs on the final page of the DP review
    : >>>
    : >>> states:
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>> "However the 58mm's overall image quality is about far more than
    : >>>
    : >>> just sharpness, and in almost every other respect you might care to
    : >>>
    : >>> consider, it absolutely shines. Chromatic aberration is very low,
    : >>>
    : >>> coma exceptionally low, vignetting nothing to worry about, and
    : >>>
    : >>> bokeh simply beautiful. There's a little barrel distortion if you
    : >>>
    : >>> go around shooting geometric compositions, but it's easily fixable
    : >>>
    : >>> in software when necessary.
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>> That wide-open lack of sharpness may still look vexing, but in
    : >>>
    : >>> real-world photography it's less problematic than you might think.
    : >>>
    : >>> When shooting at large apertures, the key is really for the
    : >>>
    : >>> in-focus regions to be sharp enough. The impact of the picture then
    : >>>
    : >>> comes from their visual contrast with the obviously unsharp
    : >>>
    : >>> out-of-focus regions. Indeed given that the bulk of the image area
    : >>>
    : >>> will quite likely be out of focus, its overall aesthetic quality
    : >>>
    : >>> tends to be dominated by the quality of the lens's bokeh. There are
    : >>>
    : >>> few lenses we'd pick over the 58mm in this regard. The take
    : >>>
    : >>> home-message is that sharpness isn't the only measure of image
    : >>>
    : >>> quality, and with fast primes shot at large apertures, it's not
    : >>>
    : >>> necessarily the most important one either."
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>>
    : >>> Whether the lense is worth the money or not is a different matter and
    : >>>
    : >>> I make no comment on that.
    : >>
    : >> Maybe they included the field curvature to accentuate portraits? Who knows.
    : >
    : > Rich, please do everybody a great favor for the New Year and resolve to
    : > never use G2/1.0 and Google Groups ever again.
    : > Get a decent Newsreader/client and dump G-Groups even if you have to
    : > use one of the free Usenet servers.
    : >
    :
    : AGREED! That damn double-spacing makes reading his posts next to
    : IMPOSSSIBLE!
    :
    : Rich - listen to the Duck, get rid of Google, PLEASE!!!

    Jeez, George, aren't you old enough to remember when typewritten drafts were
    almost always double-spaced (so that someone editing them could write in
    corrections). You must have learned to read such documents pretty well.

    Which doesn't mean that you're wrong about Rich's crappy newsreader, of
    course. :^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 1, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Is that four odd couples?
     
    PeterN, Jan 2, 2014
    #12
  13. RichA

    Guest Guest

    and remember correction tape, special typewriter erasers, white-out and
    a pile of crumbled papers in the basket? i bet you do.
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2014
    #13
  14. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Why would one want to double space Monotype fonts but not those from
    competing foundries? Perhaps you mean monospaced fonts?
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 2, 2014
    #14
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

    that's obviously what he meant.
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2014
    #15
  16. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    :
    :
    : On 1/1/14 5:29 PM, in article ,
    :
    : > On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:34:08 -0600, George Kerby <>
    : > wrote:
    : > :
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : On 12/31/13 7:47 PM, in article
    : > : [email protected], "Savageduck"
    : > :
    : > : > On 2013-12-31 23:40:47 +0000, RichA <> said:
    : > : >
    : > : >> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:06:46 PM UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
    : > : >>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:34:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> wrote:
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:16:06 AM UTC-5, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 21:39:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    : > : >>>>> wrote:
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> : There is nothing in the tests of this thing that even begin to
    : > justify a
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> : $500 price let alone $1700. I'm getting worried about Nikon, trying
    : > to
    : > : >>>>> get
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> : this kind of money for a good but hardly great lens smacks of
    : > : >>>>> desperation
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> : for money.
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> :
    : > : >>>>>
    : > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/12/30/premium-prime-nikon-af-s-nikkor-58
    : > : >>>>>
    : > mm-f-1-4g-in-depth-review?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&
    : > : >>>>> utm_medium=text-comment&ref=comments_0_0#comments
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > : > I
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>>> think that's a simplistic conclusion to draw. You could say the same
    : > thing
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> with equal plausibility if instead Nikon had slashed their prices. A
    : > more
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> nuanced view might be that their production costs are getting out of
    : > : >>>>> control,
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> resulting in products that are uncompetitive at the breakeven point.
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> A lot of Nikon's and Canon's cameras and lenses seem unnaturally
    : > expensive
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> lately. Is an explanation to be found in current exchange rates
    : > against
    : > : >>>>> the
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> yen? Just asking; I haven't been paying attention to exchange rates at
    : > : >>>>> all.
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>> Bob
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>> If the dollar fell that much, the U.S. would be bankrupt. IMO, a
    : > : >>>> 50-58mm lens that has coma, noticeable CA wide open and doesn't
    : > : >>>> maximize sharpness until f/8.0 is NOT worth that kind of money.
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> I think you are being overly hard on it.
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> The sharpness problem appears to be due to curvature of the focal
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> plane. If you a photographing square on to a flat surface, you can get
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> the middle sharp or the corners sharp, but not both. In the real
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> world, if there is something to focus on at the centre of the image,
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> it will sharp. If there is something else to focus on in the corners,
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> it will be sharp too. Paragraphs on the final page of the DP review
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> states:
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> "However the 58mm's overall image quality is about far more than
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> just sharpness, and in almost every other respect you might care to
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> consider, it absolutely shines. Chromatic aberration is very low,
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> coma exceptionally low, vignetting nothing to worry about, and
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> bokeh simply beautiful. There's a little barrel distortion if you
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> go around shooting geometric compositions, but it's easily fixable
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> in software when necessary.
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> That wide-open lack of sharpness may still look vexing, but in
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> real-world photography it's less problematic than you might think.
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> When shooting at large apertures, the key is really for the
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> in-focus regions to be sharp enough. The impact of the picture then
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> comes from their visual contrast with the obviously unsharp
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> out-of-focus regions. Indeed given that the bulk of the image area
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> will quite likely be out of focus, its overall aesthetic quality
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> tends to be dominated by the quality of the lens's bokeh. There are
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> few lenses we'd pick over the 58mm in this regard. The take
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> home-message is that sharpness isn't the only measure of image
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> quality, and with fast primes shot at large apertures, it's not
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> necessarily the most important one either."
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> Whether the lense is worth the money or not is a different matter and
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>> I make no comment on that.
    : > : >>
    : > : >> Maybe they included the field curvature to accentuate portraits? Who
    : > knows.
    : > : >
    : > : > Rich, please do everybody a great favor for the New Year and resolve to
    : > : > never use G2/1.0 and Google Groups ever again.
    : > : > Get a decent Newsreader/client and dump G-Groups even if you have to
    : > : > use one of the free Usenet servers.
    : > : >
    : > :
    : > : AGREED! That damn double-spacing makes reading his posts next to
    : > : IMPOSSSIBLE!
    : > :
    : > : Rich - listen to the Duck, get rid of Google, PLEASE!!!
    : >
    : > Jeez, George, aren't you old enough to remember when typewritten drafts were
    : > almost always double-spaced (so that someone editing them could write in
    : > corrections). You must have learned to read such documents pretty well.
    : >
    : > Which doesn't mean that you're wrong about Rich's crappy newsreader, of
    : > course. :^)
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : Agreed. And remember TWO spaces after every sentence? I bet you do. Yes.

    Yup. We were well into the word processor age before I finally got that out of
    my system!

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 3, 2014
    #16
  17. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 2014-01-02 21:50:05 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    :
    : > In article <[email protected]>,
    : > [email protected]{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    : >>
    : >> On 2014-01-02 18:56:56 +0000, George Kerby <> said:
    : >>> On 1/1/14 5:29 PM, in article ,
    : >>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:34:08 -0600, George Kerby <>
    : >>>> wrote
    : >> <<< Le Snip >>>
    : >>
    : >>>> : Rich - listen to the Duck, get rid of Google, PLEASE!!!
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Jeez, George, aren't you old enough to remember when typewritten drafts were
    : >>>> almost always double-spaced (so that someone editing them could write in
    : >>>> corrections). You must have learned to read such documents pretty well.
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Which doesn't mean that you're wrong about Rich's crappy newsreader, of
    : >>>> course. :^)
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Bob
    : >>>
    : >>> Agreed. And remember TWO spaces after every sentence? I bet you do. Yes.
    : >>
    : >> Just remember, that double space typing convention only applies to word
    : >> processors and computer apps if you are using monotype fonts.
    : >
    : > Why would one want to double space Monotype fonts but not those from
    : > competing foundries? Perhaps you mean monospaced fonts?
    :
    : Monotype fonts as opposed to True Type fonts are single spaced, or
    : "monospaced". TT fonts will space correctly and if you double space
    : after a period with a TT font the appearance will be distorted. That is
    : why with a TT font one should use an inserted ellipsis (…) which is
    : rendered as a single character, rather than three periods (...) which
    : are considered three separate characters. Whereas with a monotype font,
    : standard typewriter convention is required to preserve proper
    : formatting.

    Well … Back when I worked in a print shop (almost 60 years ago), "monotype"
    meant a form of typesetting in which each letter was a separate piece of
    metal. As opposed to "linotype", in which each piece of metal comprised a full
    line. Monotype characters were reusable (unless they got grunched in the
    printing process), whilst all lines of a linotype article went back into the
    furnace at the end of the print run.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 3, 2014
    #17
  18. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <CEEB1298.A6159%>, George Kerby
    :
    : >
    : > Agreed. And remember TWO spaces after every sentence? I bet you do. Yes.
    :
    : and remember correction tape, special typewriter erasers, white-out and
    : a pile of crumbled papers in the basket? i bet you do.

    Yeah, that too. :^)

    And remember when "cut and paste" actually *meant* "cut" and "paste"?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 3, 2014
    #18
  19. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Monotype, with a capital M, is the name of a company with a long
    history in the field of type fonts going back to the 1890s. It was
    originally the Lanston Monotype Machine Company. The firm originated
    fonts like Times New Roman and built type-setting machines.

    That's what J. Clarke was alluding to when he made the comment about
    "Why would one want to double space Monotype fonts but not those from
    competing foundries? Perhaps you mean monospaced fonts?"

    Monospaced fonts are fixed-pitch, fixed-width, fonts.

    Two different words.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 3, 2014
    #19
  20. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    No, Duck, "Monotype" has been a brand name for both a typesetting system
    and for the associated typefaces since 1857.

    On a computer, "Monotype" fonts are fonts purchased from "Monotype
    Imaging Holdings, Inc", which company currently owns the brands and type
    libraries of "Monotype", "Linotype", "ITC", "Ascender", and "Bitstream".
    Their major competitor would be Adobe.

    Monotype Imaging Holdings traces its history back to the Lanston
    Monotype company founded in 1857 and at one time was one of the major
    producers of typesetting machines, the other being Linotype. Neither
    made typewriters, typewriter arms, type wheels, or IBM golf balls, but
    both made cast-metal typesetting machines that were entirely capable of
    managing proportional spacing, kerning, ligatures, and the whole nine
    yards of commercial publishing.

    If you want to buy Monotype fonts, you find them at
    <http://www.fonts.com/font/monotype>. They are not cheap.

    If you examine those offerings you will find that Monotype offers both
    monospaced and proportional fonts.

    Someone somewhere may have told you that "monotype" is the correct term
    for fixed-pitch fonts. It is not.

    Further, you have some serious misconceptions about how type was set
    "back in the day". Ordinarily each character would be on a "sort" just
    wide enough to hold the character--an "N" would typically be half as
    wide as an "M", hence the terms "em" and "en" for spacing in the
    typesetting industry. There would also be standard spaces in the "em"
    and "en" size, and several other sizes, with shims as thin as .0002 inch
    used to achieve justification. It wasn't all fixed-pitch prior to
    computers--if you examine a Gutenberg Bible from the 1400s
    <http://molcat1.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/record.asp> you will see that
    he used proportional fonts, kerning, ligatures, and shimming to achieve
    justified columns.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 3, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.