I recently changed from Canon to Nikon and at first blew off the 58mm as too pricy for what it is. Went through this whole thread and saw something special in the rendering which is lacking in most Nikon lenses (85 1.4G for example). Bit the bullet and now it lives on my other D750. I miss the Canon 85L, it was the one Canon lens that you could not get bad bokeh. Had the Sigma 50mm Art on Canon, I was gobsmacked by the sharpness wide open and it has great microcontrast to separate the subject from the background. However I primarily photograph people and good overall rendition is more important, 58mm is enough sharp.
From those car photos and the self portrait in the flickr set, my eyes tell me the 58g leaves the detail in the rear-of-focus transition area and proceeds to give a hazy effect around them, rather like the Nikon 85 f/1.4g did in an 85l vs 85g test I saw online. The Sigma doesn't leave the detail the same way, it seems to blur everything behind the focus plane pretty quickly. I'm not sure how subject distance affects the portrait, but the transition area does look different to me. The Sigma's portrait is easier for me to look at, the sharp areas are clearly sharp and the transition area is obviously softer instead of just glowing.
This is something I preferred about the Canon 85L over the Nikon 85g as well, same effect and same subjective reason. There's usually more behind than in front of the focus point, and the transition area makes a big difference. Supposedly at least some of Nikon's lenses are softer in front of the focal point while Canon's are typically softer behind. From what I've read, you can't have both.
Some of the 58g photos look more blue/magenta, especially the car wheel.
The Sigma portrait looks sharper but I'm not sure about the post work involved. Most of the Sigma images appear sharper in the focused area.
The Sigma images tend to appear more contrasty.
I would like to know if they received similar/comparable post-processing.
My .02 as someone interested in owning and using the lens for work.
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...
Correct, but it's not a question of safety, I generally shoot across the range at f2 - gives a nice balance of DOF and isolation especially when there's more than one subject.
I've almost never shot an f1.4 lens wide open at weddings unless the light has been so poor I've had no choice to get the shutter speed.
Jason_Brook wrote:
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
Stopped down to f2 - but it's most definitely the 58
Radiohead wrote:
Correct, but it's not a question of safety, I generally shoot across the range at f2 - gives a nice balance of DOF and isolation especially when there's more than one subject.
I've almost never shot an f1.4 lens wide open at weddings unless the light has been so poor I've had no choice to get the shutter speed.
Um... I just don't get it. I don't understand why people do this. If I was to stop down a lens to f/2, I would most definitely shoot with the 50mm f/1.8G. It's LIGHTER, it's SMALLER and it's CHEAPER.
You buy the 58mm for f/1.4 bookeh, softness, haziness and chromatic aberration, not to shoot at f/2.0.
Elijah wrote:
Um... I just don't get it. I don't understand why people do this. If I was to stop down a lens to f/2, I would most definitely shoot with the 50mm f/1.8G. It's LIGHTER, it's SMALLER and it's CHEAPER.
You buy the 58mm for f/1.4 bookeh, softness, haziness and chromatic aberration, not to shoot at f/2.0.
Couple of points then
1. You're not me. Your reply has the word 'I' in it 4 times, and then you tell me why I bought the 58mm. You've never met me, you don't know. That's ok. But the wall-butt emoji wasn't needed
2. I'm not really interested in giving paying clients photos loaded with CA anyway. I (that's me) find f2 a sweet spot for the way I shoot. YMMV
3. If you think that the lens only shines at f1.4 and at no other aperture I'd have to disagree
4. I use a 35mm f1.4 all day at a wedding. A 58mm, FOR ME, works better on my second camera than a 50mm. Again YMMV
5. There's no law saying any lens has to be shot in one way and one way only, and that way has to be wide open, all the time, everywhere
6. I gave up having to justify what I use, how I use it a long time ago
Sooooo - you and I choose to use this lens differently. That doesn't make either person right or wrong.
1. You're not me. Your reply has the word 'I' in it 4 times, and then you tell me why I bought the 58mm. You've never met me, you don't know. That's ok. But the wall-butt emoji wasn't needed
2. I'm not really interested in giving paying clients photos loaded with CA anyway. I (that's me) find f2 a sweet spot for the way I shoot. YMMV
3. If you think that the lens only shines at f1.4 and at no other aperture I'd have to disagree
4. I use a 35mm f1.4 all day at a wedding. A 58mm, FOR ME, works better on my second camera than a 50mm. Again YMMV
5. There's no law saying any lens has to be shot in one way and one way only, and that way has to be wide open, all the time, everywhere
6. I gave up having to justify what I use, how I use it a long time ago
Sooooo - you and I choose to use this lens differently. That doesn't make either person right or wrong. ...Show more →
I was kidding about CA, and most of it, really but thanks for your explanation
I also like shooting at F2 with this lens. Sometimes F1.4 blurs too much of the background especially for waste high shots. The bokeh/rendering at F2 still beats the 50mm F1.8g @ F2 as well.
Hardcore wrote:
I also like shooting at F2 with this lens. Sometimes F1.4 blurs too much of the background especially for waste high shots. The bokeh/rendering at F2 still beats the 50mm F1.8g @ F2 as well.
...I should try shooting at f/2. It's been a while
Want quick chime in, the lens is shine used between f1.8 to f2.2, especially for close distance, I prefer its bokeh and rendering at those aperture than WO. That is really the sweat spot of the lens to me. It clean up so much in focus area but still with superb(better to me) OOF rendering.
Once at longer distance, or really low light, f1.4 come into play. my 2c.
form wrote:
From those car photos and the self portrait in the flickr set, my eyes tell me the 58g leaves the detail in the rear-of-focus transition area and proceeds to give a hazy effect around them, rather like the Nikon 85 f/1.4g did in an 85l vs 85g test I saw online. The Sigma doesn't leave the detail the same way, it seems to blur everything behind the focus plane pretty quickly. I'm not sure how subject distance affects the portrait, but the transition area does look different to me. The Sigma's portrait is easier for me to look at, the sharp areas are clearly sharp and the transition area is obviously softer instead of just glowing.
This is something I preferred about the Canon 85L over the Nikon 85g as well, same effect and same subjective reason. There's usually more behind than in front of the focus point, and the transition area makes a big difference. Supposedly at least some of Nikon's lenses are softer in front of the focal point while Canon's are typically softer behind. From what I've read, you can't have both.
Some of the 58g photos look more blue/magenta, especially the car wheel.
The Sigma portrait looks sharper but I'm not sure about the post work involved. Most of the Sigma images appear sharper in the focused area.
The Sigma images tend to appear more contrasty.
I would like to know if they received similar/comparable post-processing.
My .02 as someone interested in owning and using the lens for work....Show more →
both images had the same vsco lightroom preset applied with the same 70 sharpening and no masking.
no photoshop work done on these except the strobist portraits. on those i dodged and burned them same same amount each.
Like I said, you can pixel peep the images and find differences just like you have but taking them for face value and quick glances, you really dont see a huge difference other than the perspective portion. it's subjective, you can tell yourself you see more differences than I can and that's different stokes for different folks.
I now have both 58/1.4G and Sigma 50/1.4 ART, and have been using both on our newborn son. 58 does not exactly shine for newborn pictures as one tends to shoot at MFD with eyes/face being off center. That said, I do like them both. For some shots, I like the amazing wide open sharpness I seem to get with the Sigma, and for others, I like the rendering of the 58. Still cannot decide which to keep and which to sell, which means I will probably keep both until I am in need of cash
