BSPhotog wrote:
I have never shot the 58, but is there a reason you're shooting a landscape like this at f/2.2 and 1/4000 instead of say f/5 and 1/1000?
I won't argue with that. Image looks sharp across the frame and has more DOF than I would have expected for f/2.2. I was more wondering if it was some quirk of the lens where it was sharper there or something.
BSPhotog wrote:
I won't argue with that. Image looks sharp across the frame and has more DOF than I would have expected for f/2.2. I was more wondering if it was some quirk of the lens where it was sharper there or something.
From my experience, no it's still sharper as you stop down although there're already some noticeable improvement going from 1.4 to 2.
But there is a quirk to the 58/1.4 in that the field curvature flattens as you focus further out towards infinity.
The lens also sharpens up more as you focus towards infinity, even at f1.4. It is softest at closest focus distance.
BSPhotog wrote:
I have never shot the 58, but is there a reason you're shooting a landscape like this at f/2.2 and 1/4000 instead of say f/5 and 1/1000?
Hello
Maybe by not losing the character of the lens to f/5.
I believe that it is sufficiently sharp to f/2.2.
Dj R wrote:
don't kick me out of the club for my aperture Its a great shot that is the most important thing. Sharp,Angle,Awesome expressions. Family keeper!
Guys, do you know of a cheaper alternative to this lens? it could even be manual focus. I'm really interested in the extra 8mm of compression and the smoothness of the bokeh, but I just don't see myself spending $1600 for a single 50mm-esque lens. Not that I don't think it's worth it, but the value proposition for me is not there.
eke2k6 wrote:
Guys, do you know of a cheaper alternative to this lens? it could even be manual focus. I'm really interested in the extra 8mm of compression and the smoothness of the bokeh, but I just don't see myself spending $1600 for a single 50mm-esque lens. Not that I don't think it's worth it, but the value proposition for me is not there.
I own it, but it's not in the same league bokeh and compression wise, going by samples on this thread. I'm even willing to go MF for this look. For now, until I can justify the Nikkor.
The voigtlander 58mm 1.4 is a good alternative. It was my favorite lens to use prior to owning the 58G. Here is a picture I took with it at f2.0.
eke2k6 wrote:
I own it, but it's not in the same league bokeh and compression wise, going by samples on this thread. I'm even willing to go MF for this look. For now, until I can justify the Nikkor.
khoido77 wrote:
The voigtlander 58mm 1.4 is a good alternative. It was my favorite lens to use prior to owning the 58G. Here is a picture I took with it at f2.0.
Thanks for the suggestion. I checked out the Voigt, and it seems like a nice value, but the bokeh looks really jittery in all the samples I've seen. I'm interested in the Nikkor because of its smooth and diffuse rendering of backgrounds.
I had the 58G for about a year and made a few contributions to this thread earlier on. But not being a portrait or wedding pro, I was finding I didn't get nearly enough use out of this lens to justify the amount of money I had tied up in it. So I sold it recently and now my Nikon 58 f1.4 is actually the 1960 version of the 5.8cm f1.4, which is about a year younger than I am. It's not quite the lens the 58G is, and it obviously doesn't have AF, but I find it's bokeh and transition characteristics to be closer to the 58G than I found the Voigtlander 58 f1.4 was when I briefly had that lens. And I paid a lot less for it as well. There are situations where it doesn't shine, but for my uses, it makes a lot more sense than the 58G. I won't post images from this lens going forward - I know this thread is exclusive to the 58 f1.4G. But just to say adios from my occasional participation here, and presenting another old alternative if anyone is interested...
