Buy this lens, folks! It will automatically make you a talented photographer
This is one of those times when people say "you take great pictures! you must have a nice lens"
Elijah wrote:
Buy this lens, folks! It will automatically make you a talented photographer
This is one of those times when people say "you take great pictures! you must have a nice lens"
I'm OK with my tools, but I also know which tools I mostly USE for what I shoot. And I just don't do much of the kind of thing this lens and you folks excel at. Even with my 50 f1.4, I occasionally shoot people across a dinner table or maybe one or two posed shots in a year (my niece and daughter needed head and shoulders shots for professional use last year, so I could do that), but when I'm doing my much more frequent candids at family gatherings, I almost always want something at least 85mm. With my 50, I have to go looking for stuff to shoot with lots of OOF area and I usually come back with stuff like this:
Lord knows I don't need a $1500+ lens for this type of stuff. If I somehow needed to cut back to my most essential kit, nothing in the 40-80mm range would make the cut. So I can't even remotely justify it. But I love seeing what you folks do with it. Really inspiring.
I just picked up the Sigma 50/1.4 ART but I'll buy this one as well to shoot them side-by-side for a while to make my own educated decision. Having used the Canon 50/1.2L quite extensively as well as using the Leica Summilux-M 50/1.4 ASPH on a Sony right now, I'm sure I'll like the 58/1.4 a lot. 50mm is my favorite focal length.
I do pop in here and get tempted by this lens, but also don't really see that much of a difference between it and my Sigma 50mm wide open. Some photos seem to have a bit more pop, but its not really really clear to me enough to justify the difference in price. I really wonder if most people could see the diff in a "blind" side by side test. Instead I'm leaning towards throwing my fun funds into a 200mm 2.0, as I think the results from shooting that one wide oper are hard to duplicate at any price.
stevez32 wrote:
I do pop in here and get tempted by this lens, but also don't really see that much of a difference between it and my Sigma 50mm wide open. Some photos seem to have a bit more pop, but its not really really clear to me enough to justify the difference in price. I really wonder if most people could see the diff in a "blind" side by side test. Instead I'm leaning towards throwing my fun funds into a 200mm 2.0, as I think the results from shooting that one wide oper are hard to duplicate at any price.
I personally can tell the difference every time, especially if both are being shot wide open. A lot of people balk at price but it's right in line with other 1.4 glass minus the Nikon 50mm which is and will always be a great value. If you like bokeh it's hard to get better IMO.
stevez32 wrote:
I do pop in here and get tempted by this lens, but also don't really see that much of a difference between it and my Sigma 50mm wide open. Some photos seem to have a bit more pop, but its not really really clear to me enough to justify the difference in price. I really wonder if most people could see the diff in a "blind" side by side test. Instead I'm leaning towards throwing my fun funds into a 200mm 2.0, as I think the results from shooting that one wide oper are hard to duplicate at any price.
I see a big difference in rendering, a blind test would be nice
New user, but I blame this thread for my purchase.In a positive way Just logged in to throw in a test shot. Got this lens today. [url=https://flic.kr/p/sxsrdu]DSC_8213 by micke vmix, on Flickr[/url]
Hes right to a point. it really depends on the distance between the subject and the lens and the back ground and the subject.
If your subject is right in the sweet spot, both lens can render an identical bokeh with a strikingly similar perceived sharpness.
I'm sure a lot of you could pixel peep to death 2 images taken by both lenses and figure it out but there are some cases I have taken images from both lenses and couldn't really tell the difference.
When i start getting closer to the subject with both lenses, my subject is Sharper on the sigma, softer on the 58, bokeh is more swirly on the 58 and bokeh is more neutral on the sigma.
if i have a good distance between be and the subject, say medium to infinity focus distance and the back ground isnt too far away from behind the subject, than besides the perspective and crop, its kind of hard to tell the difference in a blind test to a person who doesnt own both lenses.
Yes yes yes! I saw these a while back. There's a dramatic difference in the 1 & 2 images.
Thanks for posting these! Maybe some people will stop saying the two are the same... they're not.
Thanks Shawn, I haven't seen this, although the perspective/focal length difference does give it away a bit. I guess what I think I'd like to still do is something other than a 1:1 side by comparison. For example a mix of images from different 50mm taken in typical shooting situations by the same photographer. Because I sometimes hear people say they can pick out the 58mm in a gallery, and yes, with side by sides like this I can pretty easily see at least a smoother texture evident in the 58mm, but what I don't fully subscribe to, is that more than half of people would be able to consistently pick out a mix of shots taken by the same photographer in similar light etc. and spot the 58mm vs. other quality 50mm lenses. For example, if a photographer went out and did a session with a good 50mm (e.g., Sigma or std. 1.4 nikon) and then posted their results (saying it was with the 58mm), some may be influenced into liking the results more if they thought it was the 58mm but unlikely to detect the ruse. In other words, long story short, I think the difference may be quite subtle/undetectable? in real world use but that is just a working theory...
You'd probably be correct by adding the 50mm F1.8 to that mix. I doubt many people could even tell the difference between the 50mm F1.8g, Sigma 50mm F1.4 and the Nikon 58mm F1.4g. You could save yourself a lot of money by just shooting with the 50mm 1.8g but the horrible thing is we know side by side that the 58mm has something that just sets it apart. Some don't see it though, and others want the sharpness of the 50mm F1.4 art or they want to save a lot of cash and get the 50mm F1.8g.
The best image I have ever taken was with a 50mm F1.8g and I doubt I would ever be able to replicate it again even with the 58mm F1.4g
You'd probably be correct by adding the 50mm F1.8 to that mix. I doubt many people could even tell the difference between the 50mm F1.8g, Sigma 50mm F1.4 and the Nikon 58mm F1.4g. You could save yourself a lot of money by just shooting with the 50mm 1.8g but the horrible thing is we know side by side that the 58mm has something that just sets it apart. Some don't see it though, and others want the sharpness of the 50mm F1.4 art or they want to save a lot of cash and get the 50mm F1.8g.
The best image I have ever taken was with a 50mm F1.8g and I doubt I would ever be able to replicate it again even with the 58mm F1.4g
Ha, Corey, yeah I am there with you on that. It can be splitting hairs and the photographer will make a bigger difference in the end of course. I know people will gladly pay more even for a variety of reasons that can be subjective or to get better build quality even when image quality is about equal. Photo gear is all a personal thing, and I certainly don't fault people for that (I do it too). I just want to re-iterate that I do see the difference in the side by sides for some sections, and would prefer the 58mm generally in all I have seen, but to me I love the bang for the buck of the regular Sigma 50mm 1.4 lens that can be had for around $250.
You guys basically listed the reasons I think the sig is a stupid buy. It does nothing special. Save money and buy the 1.8G. Likewise with the 58, if you just do snap shots buy the 1.8G.
Awesome shots. Great moments. However, I don't see you using this lens at f/1.4 judging by the bokeh. Are you one of those who shoots at f/2.0 and smaller just to be "safe"?
Edit: Just observed the images even deeper... they look like 50mm shots...
Elijah wrote:
Awesome shots. Great moments. However, I don't see you using this lens at f/1.4 judging by the bokeh. Are you one of those who shoots at f/2.0 and smaller just to be "safe"?
Edit: Just observed the images even deeper... they look like 50mm shots...
I'm going to side with you. Either those are stopped down or it's not the 58. It kinda smells like Sigma with the tree bokeh......and lack of CA
