mcpallesen wrote:
Thanks a lot. I am non-pro, so in that sense my photography work is not "critical". But you would still advice sticking with the D750 to pair with 58mm? I do shoot quite a bit in low light/indoor evening light. Thoughts?
The Leica Q and Df would look awesome together though. ;-)
There's no denying the Df's sex appeal, and I'm not saying that its AF is incompetent. Just that you already have a better *tool* in the 750, and you'll feel the downgrade in usability.
eke2k6 wrote:
There's no denying the Df's sex appeal, and I'm not saying that its AF is incompetent. Just that you already have a better *tool* in the 750, and you'll feel the downgrade in usability.
I hear you. Thanks for the advice, I will most likely stick with the D750.
If you're looking to use it at f/8 it's still a great lens, but there are other much more affordable alternatives. The 'magical' end of the 58 is from f/1.4 to f/2.0 That's where its unique rendering lies....
LeonD60 wrote:
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask but I have a question about the 58mm f1.4.
Is all the "specialness" with this lens just at the wide open end? Is there any distinction between this lens and the 50mm f1/4 at say f8, f11, f16?
Obviously, what I'm trying to figure out is the cost justification. It's good to know that overall, it's a solid lens to begin with. And that the "magic" can be turned on or off depending on which aperture I select.
I'm starting to think this may be one piece of gear that a LOT of questions can be answered by renting it for a few days.
Renting it to try it out is a great idea. Not everyone likes this lens, but those who do, love it. Spend some time fine-tuning the AF to get the best results. DoF wide open is very shallow.
LeonD60 wrote:
Thanks for the replies, guys.
Obviously, what I'm trying to figure out is the cost justification. It's good to know that overall, it's a solid lens to begin with. And that the "magic" can be turned on or off depending on which aperture I select.
I'm starting to think this may be one piece of gear that a LOT of questions can be answered by renting it for a few days.
Obviously, what I'm trying to figure out is the cost justification. It's good to know that overall, it's a solid lens to begin with. And that the "magic" can be turned on or off depending on which aperture I select.
I'm starting to think this may be one piece of gear that a LOT of questions can be answered by renting it for a few days.
Also, at least for me, the minimal focus distance stuff isn't as great as the mid distance shots. Like five feet plus. If that makes any sense.
I've never found the 58 lacking in sharpness, even wide open. One of the forum members compared it to the 200 f/2 a while back and the results were quite surprising. Whilst the 58 isn't as sharp as the 200 f/2, it wasn't completely shamed by it. The 58 is less contrasty wide open, which many people seem to mistake for softness. Focus has to be perfect though to get usable results.
jefonyx wrote:
Actually the lens can be really sharp wide open without the blurry effet but we have to nail exactly the focus :
Chatted with someone who has this lens, and said how useless it was and thus relegated it to the shelf and advertised on classifieds. After I asked what justified that comment, it came out it wasn't sharp and always fuzzy. And turns out no efforts were made to AF fine tune, and the conclusion was drawn pretty much after looking at the first images. Just too much money, too little effort and simply too much ego, "I've been shooting 20 years" ... just to finally sit down for 30min, do some AF fine tuning and suddenly realise his lens is fine. Funny how the for sale status suddenly went away.
