Just shot my first wedding with this lens. Really just a fantastic all around performer. Lovely to work with. Fantastic for the formal portraits even fairly wide open.
Just shot my first wedding with this lens. Really just a fantastic all around performer. Lovely to work with. Fantastic for the formal portraits even fairly wide open.
jmai86 wrote:
Awesome stuff in here. Question for 58 users: How does it fit into your FF lens kit? I'm using a 28/50/85 1.8G kit and thinking about changing to the 58G, but worry that it's too close to the 85, which I LOVE. Does it simply replace the 50? I have a 180D coming too which will serve for the long end, and a 20-35 I use for landscapes/family. The 28/50/85 I use mostly for vacation/travel and street.
very personal thing. so here's my personal answer.
the main thing I will say is that the 58 and 85 1.4 is that they are two expensive beasts and they are indeed pretty close, not that close, but they are both great for portrait. hand me one or the other, and I can get the job done.
one of those expensive beasts could sit for a month without being used. may as well get something else. 35-85-135 on the other hand, you would probably get more use out of them.
I happen to have the 50 1.8 G for casual shooting, light kit day.
But my 85 1.4 Nikkor is my money maker. and it's so lightweight compared with my old 85Lii f1.2, a bonus! But it's not cheap, so I leave it at home, when it's not a paying or serious project.
but for portrait work/wedding/event
35 1.4 art and 85 1.4 G (bigger glass and more $)
I wouldn't want/need an expensive 50 and 85, or an expensive 24 and 35.
you can take a half step or full step in either direction and be there.
with all of that said, I have way too many lenses. so I too, have had GAS.
good luck,
I hope this helps in some way.
I had to reconsider my whole line up after getting the 58. Unfortunately I cannot afford lenses that I don't use often so compromises had to be made
I sold my 85 1.4, 35 1.4 ART, 50 1.8g which were all retired to very occasional use. Now I'm using the 58, 105 2.5, 70-200 VR II, 28 1.8g and the Rokinon 14 2.8. The 58 gets about 75% share of the photos.
jmai86 wrote:
Awesome stuff in here. Question for 58 users: How does it fit into your FF lens kit? I'm using a 28/50/85 1.8G kit and thinking about changing to the 58G, but worry that it's too close to the 85, which I LOVE. Does it simply replace the 50? I have a 180D coming too which will serve for the long end, and a 20-35 I use for landscapes/family. The 28/50/85 I use mostly for vacation/travel and street.
"The main point of an f/1.4 lens is to be able to shoot it wide open, and this is exactly where this product is a spectacular fail for anyone who needs to use the photos for something, say: clients."
I love that his conclusion is on behalf of "anyone". Smh
Dj R wrote:
I found a really comprehensive review of all of the 50mm out there for nikon
I found the tone dogmatic and rather unpleasant to read. I don't own or plan to buy the 58mm (though I love the pictures you guys post on this topic), but he is very sure to have reached the only and universal truth with its limited testing, and that anybody disagreeing is a fool.
It's a review, just like any other it's a subjective and limited comparison of various tools.I liked this one better: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g
Romain wrote:
I found the tone dogmatic and rather unpleasant to read. I don't own or plan to buy the 58mm (though I love the pictures you guys post on this topic), but he is very sure to have reached the only and universal truth with its limited testing, and that anybody disagreeing is a fool.
It's a review, just like any other it's a subjective and limited comparison of various tools.I liked this one better: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g
I don't hate anyone, but I don't like him much.
but his comments on the material aspect of the lens, I can't argue with Ken.
Ken: "It's amusing seeing how this new 58mm is put in an oversize plastic barrel to imitate the look of the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L at an even higher price. I have to laugh; this Nikon is only an f/1.4 lens so it doesn't have much glass so its plastic barrel is mostly plastic and air, not glass as with the real f/1.2 and f/1.0 lenses. This 58mm lens is essentially the 50/1.4G put in a big plastic barrel with the price jacked up to pretend it's a Canon 50/1.2L. I wouldn't buy one of these; I prefer the smaller 50/1.4G that focuses closer and sells for a fraction of the price, with the same sharpness and bokeh performance for all practical intents and purposes. This 58mm lens isn't exotic; it's just priced like it. "
On the other hand, Ken's review of the 85 1.4, glowing: "The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-S G is simply astonishing. It is the first lens I have ever used in over 40 years of photography that excels at both the scientific aspects (sharpness and lack of coma, especially at f/1.4 in the corners), and the artistic aspects of defocus, all at the same time. Every other lens I've used is either super-sharp, but renders distracting backgrounds (most aspherical lenses), or others may may have pleasant bokeh, but aren't always that sharp (like the previous 85mm f/1.4 AF-D, whose corners never really get sharp). This is probably why the few other people who already have this new lens have also been trying to pick themselves up off the floor after shooting with it. This new Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is one of the best lenses ever made. It is super-sharp, even at f/1.4. Out-of-focus backgrounds simply melt away into undistracting softness due to this lens' spectacular bokeh, at many apertures."
back to the 58 1.4:
looking at this first image below, the 58 1.4... mostly air in there.
it really should be 77mm
and the lens could still be much smaller. which would appeal to me.
hijazist wrote:
"The main point of an f/1.4 lens is to be able to shoot it wide open, and this is exactly where this product is a spectacular fail for anyone who needs to use the photos for something, say: clients."
I love that his conclusion is on behalf of "anyone". Smh
I thought this comment was pretty lame. Perhaps a bad copy of the lens or even that there was no AF fine tuning done. There are plenty of examples of significant sharpness wide open in this thread alone. My copy is very sharp wide open.
I don't hate anyone, but I don't like him much.
but his comments on the material aspect of the lens, I can't argue with Ken.
Ken: "It's amusing seeing how this new 58mm is put in an oversize plastic barrel to imitate the look of the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L at an even higher price. I have to laugh; this Nikon is only an f/1.4 lens so it doesn't have much glass so its plastic barrel is mostly plastic and air, not glass as with the real f/1.2 and f/1.0 lenses. This 58mm lens is essentially the 50/1.4G put in a big plastic barrel with the price jacked up to pretend it's a Canon 50/1.2L. I wouldn't buy one of these; I prefer the smaller 50/1.4G that focuses closer and sells for a fraction of the price, with the same sharpness and bokeh performance for all practical intents and purposes. This 58mm lens isn't exotic; it's just priced like it. "
On the other hand, Ken's review of the 85 1.4, glowing: "The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-S G is simply astonishing. It is the first lens I have ever used in over 40 years of photography that excels at both the scientific aspects (sharpness and lack of coma, especially at f/1.4 in the corners), and the artistic aspects of defocus, all at the same time. Every other lens I've used is either super-sharp, but renders distracting backgrounds (most aspherical lenses), or others may may have pleasant bokeh, but aren't always that sharp (like the previous 85mm f/1.4 AF-D, whose corners never really get sharp). This is probably why the few other people who already have this new lens have also been trying to pick themselves up off the floor after shooting with it. This new Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is one of the best lenses ever made. It is super-sharp, even at f/1.4. Out-of-focus backgrounds simply melt away into undistracting softness due to this lens' spectacular bokeh, at many apertures."
back to the 58 1.4:
looking at this first image below, the 58 1.4... mostly air in there.
it really should be 77mm
and the lens could still be much smaller. which would appeal to me.
low325 wrote:
why we keep talking about size whether or not thats supposed to affect IQ
those damn leica lenses are tiny and they render different and beautiful.
they sure do
I think the pro reviews are suggesting that nikon made the 58 larger, intentionally (but for no purpose) just so it looks big and expensive.
I'm really not 100% sure though.
certainly the lens could be a lot smaller, based on the image above. looks like a lot of air in there
cheers
Love that couple shot too, very down to earth and easy going couple it seems.
