I had a three stop ND filter on as well and wanted to see how the duo would work at f1.4 at a wedding. I was pretty impressed at the amount of keepers.
Driveitputtit wrote:
300% crop from the photo above which was shot at f/1.6 (I'm sure my wife would love that I posted that )
Resulting dimensions from D810 are 436 x 289 ppi
Yes, I've seen sharper...but it surely gets me plenty of detail for almost any print. I appreciate that you tried the lens and it wasn't your cup of tea, but mines staying in my bag right along side my 85g, and the 58 gets used more often.
azenis wrote:
Lol... I'm shocked that people still argue that the 58G is not sharp and hence not a good lens.
Seriously... 58G is a great lens. It pretty much replicated the look of the legendary Noct and gave it AF. What's more to ask? Sure it's not F1.2, but I believe it's a justifiable trade-off given the complexity and cost it would involve to make it F1.2. And it produces a rendition unlike ANY other lens in the market (well, except the noct)
I have had my share of experience with standard lenses: Otus, Canon 50 F1.0L, all 3 dif. apertures of Leica Noctilux, Zunow and Nikon 50mm F1.1, Fujinon 5cm F1.2, Konica Hexanon 60mm F1.2, Kinopitk 50APO, Leica 50APO, Noct, 58G... and more. The Otus might be the sharpest, (it's actually arguable.. Kinoptik 50APO is sharper IMO although it's F2) but it's certainly not the most desirable.
It's not about bashing Otus either, it's a great lens. But not a lens worth having IMO because its rendition is too sterile. It's sharp... but not much else. If sharpness is what you are looking, Otus is great. But an Otus would never give you the rendition of a 58G, or any other standard lens for the matter. It would only give you that rendition of an Otus. And when it comes to photography, doesn't matter how one use it for, experience with them. Sharpness is not everything... Cartier-Bresson's works were hardly ever sharp... yet his pictures have inspired people worldwide for decades....Show more →
I completely agree that, "sharpness is not everything". If that's all you want get a Sigma 50 Art . I expected the Otus to be sharp but the micro contrasts, clearly defined white and black (not slightly greyed) and unparalleled lack of flare combine to make it something completely unique. The clinical look that soft lens adherents "love" to hate is easily handled in post. Not all photos need sharpening, but it's nice to be working from excellent, well defined detail as opposed to trying to create it in post. The Otus lenses are far more than just sharp.
chrisfphotog wrote:
The wife and I went to Punta Cana recently for our honeymoon. One afternoon we were in a private cabana on the beach and lo and behold this wedding goes down right next to us, so of course I had to snap some shots. Good thing I brought my D810 and 58mm to the cabana with me that day.
Vancouver47 wrote:
I completely agree that, "sharpness is not everything". If that's all you want get a Sigma 50 Art . I expected the Otus to be sharp but the micro contrasts, clearly defined white and black (not slightly greyed) and unparalleled lack of flare combine to make it something completely unique. The clinical look that soft lens adherents "love" to hate is easily handled in post. Not all photos need sharpening, but it's nice to be working from excellent, well defined detail as opposed to trying to create it in post. The Otus lenses are far more than just sharp.
But all that micro contrast and "clearly" defined colors doesn't make Otus a *better* lens. Comparing pure sharpness, it's among the best of standard lenses (with other contenders such as Kinoptik 50APO and Leica 50APO). But when it comes to pleasing rendering, it actually falls to one of the last places among exotic standard lenses.
Otus is like a great straight A student that succeed in many aspects but not very good at sport. Yes, it's great. But there are others who excels in specific areas that it simply can't cover.
So, go try other lenses. I have had the fortune of collecting all kind of standard lenses. (over 20 of them, yes all between 40-60mm) And sure you can photoshop the crap out of a picture produced by any lens to resemble the other, there's that micro difference among them that it's simply impossible for one lens to duplicate them all.
Because otherwise, my collection would have been much cheaper as there'd be few to compete with me for vintage lenses.
And seeing you are in Vancouver, l would be more than happy to bring some of my lenses to go against your Otus (I had an Otus, but traded it for another lens) as long as you get coffee and donuts.
azenis wrote:
But all that micro contrast and "clearly" defined colors doesn't make Otus a *better* lens. Comparing pure sharpness, it's among the best of standard lenses (with other contenders such as Kinoptik 50APO and Leica 50APO). But when it comes to pleasing rendering, it actually falls to one of the last places among exotic standard lenses.
Otus is like a great straight A student that succeed in many aspects but not very good at sport. Yes, it's great. But there are others who excels in specific areas that it simply can't cover.
So, go try other lenses. I have had the fortune of collecting all kind of standard lenses. (over 20 of them, yes all between 40-60mm) And sure you can photoshop the crap out of a picture produced by any lens to resemble the other, there's that micro difference among them that it's simply impossible for one lens to duplicate them all.
Because otherwise, my collection would have been much cheaper as there'd be few to compete with me for vintage lenses.
And seeing you are in Vancouver, l would be more than happy to bring some of my lenses to go against your Otus (I had an Otus, but traded it for another lens) as long as you get coffee and donuts. ...Show more →
I can't disagree, I was simply responding to the comment on the Otus as: "It's sharp... but not much else." That's nonsense.
I pretty much did what you decribed but I did not use MFD. I shot about 10 feet.
I am going to try one more af tune with the manual focus and liveview trick I read on here somewhere. It would be cool not to have to fine tune but doesn't seem like that happens much with 1.4 lenses. I am tempted to send it in since i am sending something else to nikon anyways. I am curious if they could get it so it doesn't need af fine tune anyways.
twistacatz wrote:
When I shoot with this lens at 1.4-2.8ish near my subject or at MFD I always use the center focus point, you almost have to. As you back up or stop down the sweet spot gets bigger and bigger and you can start to focus on other sides of the frame.
Can you give us some insight into how you AF tuned the lens? As a test you should go outside, use a tripod and using the center AF point aim at something stagnate like a bottle at MFD and shoot at the text at 1.4. The text in the middle of the frame should be very sharp with quick fall off from whatever is outside of the dead center of the frame.
Personally I feel like this lens requires the most TLC out of all of my lenses to get what I consider acceptable results.This lens is tricky to use and get use to but after you get it down the results are unmatched. ...Show more →
)
