ilnonno Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
mawz wrote:
The Nikkor 28/1.8 is the best fast 28 on the market today. That's not a particularly high hurdle admittedly, but it's the truth.
The 50/1.8 is certainly not mediocre. It's not a world-beater either, but it's a $250CDN lens that matches or exceeds everything in its class under $900 and some over that. Hate to break it to you but there are very few ~50mm's that are fast and aren't atrocious wide open, and only one is under $4K new (the Art). 50's until recently were an area where traditional design ruled and that meant double-gauss designs and poor wide aperture performance.
Fast 85's also are generally not very well corrected wide open. This is for a very simple reason, well corrected SA gives funky bokeh, and people buy fast 85's for their bokeh. This is also why Nikon and Canon's 85/1.8's are generally known for poorer bokeh than their faster compatriots, but being sharper wide open (they're better corrected than the faster lenses) Guess what, when the 85 Otus arrives the verdict is almost assuredly going to be that it's incredible wide open but the bokeh is a pity.
...Show more →
To be honest, but of course, not willing at all to turn this into an argument, I don't agree with your post.
Reasons being:
* the fact that other 50 lenses are equally bad doesn't turn the 1.8g into a good lens. That the 50 1.8 is technically a poor lens, it is a fact of life. Yes, it's cheap, and yes, by 2.5/2.8 gets very sharp. Is it good below that? Is it contrasty enough? I own one, tried another, I know the answers, and don't care whether other 50s (admittingly, all very old) perform or not. (by the way: it's not only the Otus or 50A out there, as you suggest: Sony has a new Zeiss 50 1.4, and an excellent 55 1.8 for the FE mount, so other gems exist. New designs are bigger, but high quality).
* Spherical aberration (but my knowledge is incomplete, and I'd be glad to be rectified by lens designers or other experts among us) appears to be just one of the elements defining bokeh. It's not "required" by fast 85s to show good blurring characteristics (although it certainly helps them look very bad abeeration and focus shifting wise). Very well corrected lenses like the Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar, the 200/2 show still very good bokeh. The 55 1.4 is in a class of its own bokeh-wise, despite being supremely corrected. As such, their 85 will probably be do even better than that. Even the Sigma 35A, a well corrected lens, has a nice bokeh. Did the 35G I had had it better? By a hair. But then, I ended up using it at f1.8/2 all the time for sharpness, even on a forgiving D3s.
Why this "tirade" on SA?
Because I am unhappy at Nikon. Because Corrected lenses exist that excel on many planes, just not from Nikon. They have chosen instead not to make them, and instead they offerl us loyal consumers very expensive but underspecified glass (24/35/85 1.4G).
I read Lenstip's review of the 58 1.4G with a little hilarity, but also a bit angry at them for bashing Nikon so hard with only one sample of the lens tried. Then went to try it myself (two copies, my shop allows me some leeway...).
I wasn't smiling anymore: the lense is very, very soft upt to f2, it needs live view to ensure proper reliable focusing (due to the aberrations wide open), and the level of longitudinal aberrations was impressive, in a negative way.
Went home with my money in my pocket, of course, and with a new respect for Lenstip.
In the end: some may like this rendition, this "mellow" and endearing pictorial style at all costs.
But I need fast glass to perform wide open, and Nikon makes none. The 50 1.8g can be excused for its price, the rest of the line truly makes me question where Nikon wants to drive their customers.
Again, no "argumenting" with you in my mind. Just sharing the conclusions that work for me, that took me innumerable tests and disappointments. I may represent a very tiny niche (shooting in truly awful light most of the time), but I value very highly wide open useability, and am willing to pay for it, it some company offers it on the market.
Lory
P.s.
you're unfortunately right on the 28 being the "best" out there...
I laid my hands on 2 28 1.4D, "legendary" according to the internet, and the results have been abysmal with both "like new" and revisioned (one) lenses...
|