You can use such a lens. It just depends if you will like the results. Some do and some don’t. I fall in the do category. I find at 1.4 if you give it a few feet you will do really well. If you want something tighter then an 85 or 105 may be more appropriate.
The pleasant suprise for me with this lens was that everyone was referring to 1.4 and special rendering all the time but as soon as you stop down even a bit this lens is very sharp. If I’m taking candids and get a second person in the photo and their faces are not on the same plain I will adjust aperture instead of awkwardly trying to get them in the shallow DOF plain. I find this lens to be as good as any portrait lens in the F2 to 2.8 range.
Kry27 wrote:
That is why I wanted focus info. The only 2 things 1.4 did in the image above are:
- render background (like, maybe good at f/2.8 als), BUT
- miss focus on one of the faces (DISlike, aka no go)
The lens takes some practice as it is a unique lens. You have a spectrum of renderings from f/1.4 to f/7 and above.
Personally I love the lens and many do not so it is very personal. It is a lens you must understand as the fine tune AF does vary slightly at different distances and f stops and you need to optimise them if you are using a DSLR.
I understand that and that is why I am looking through this thread carefully. I love its rendering, but still would shoot that situation at f/2 or slower. And I have to find out whether it is worth the purchase for that. F1.4 rendering is super, sure, but that is not exclusively possible for me (2 faces, or 2 eyes... I like both in focus).
I would use it on Z 7 I think. Normally I use the 85/1.4D on a D750, as I love that lens and focal width. My next wider lens with similarly strong character is a 28/1.4D (both available in G/E flavour to AF on the Z 7, but different rendering). I don't like the 50/1.4D that much...
I would change to Z completely if it was not for the 85D...
Kry27 wrote:
I understand that and that is why I am looking through this thread carefully. I love its rendering, but still would shoot that situation at f/2 or slower. And I have to find out whether it is worth the purchase for that. F1.4 rendering is super, sure, but that is not exclusively possible for me (2 faces, or 2 eyes... I like both in focus).
I would use it on Z 7 I think. Normally I use the 85/1.4D on a D750, as I love that lens and focal width. My next wider lens with similarly strong character is a 28/1.4D (both available in G/E flavour to AF on the Z 7, but different rendering). I don't like the 50/1.4D that much...
I would change to Z completely if it was not for the 85D......Show more →
Your choice of the 85D and 28D are both superb in renderings and the 58G is very much similar but for your style stopping down to f/1.8 to f/2.8 would be ideal.
charles.K wrote:
Your choice of the 85D and 28D are both superb in renderings and the 58G is very much similar but for your style stopping down to f/1.8 to f/2.8 would be ideal.
I use both on the Z7, but the 58 more often. The AF support gives it a distinct advantage in many situations. They are both wonderful optics. I would be insane to sell off the Cream-Machine
Kry27 wrote:
I understand that and that is why I am looking through this thread carefully. I love its rendering, but still would shoot that situation at f/2 or slower. And I have to find out whether it is worth the purchase for that. F1.4 rendering is super, sure, but that is not exclusively possible for me (2 faces, or 2 eyes... I like both in focus).
I would use it on Z 7 I think. Normally I use the 85/1.4D on a D750, as I love that lens and focal width. My next wider lens with similarly strong character is a 28/1.4D (both available in G/E flavour to AF on the Z 7, but different rendering). I don't like the 50/1.4D that much...
I would change to Z completely if it was not for the 85D......Show more →
What I love about 58/1.4g is that rendering of aperture beyond 1.4 also have very pleasing rendition to me. Yes, 1.4 is special, but it does not all of a sudden become a generic 50 ish lens when stopped down. Subjectively speaking, it is painterly. Very 'yummy' rendering. YMMV.
Thanks for all the help! I do use 28 and 85 wide open at 1.4 when needed because of the light or desired for the rendering. But not if this leads to critical image content being OOF.
As you said, the good thing is both lenses gain in sharpness and DOF when stopped down without losing the OOF beauty. Esp. the cream machine gains a lot of sharpness, portraits at 2.0, 2.2, 2.5 are so good with still extraordinary well rendered background.
I would use the 58 like that: f/1.4 because it is beautiful, f/2.0 because two people need 4 sharp eyes, f/2.8+ for a single face at an angle to get both eyes in focus.
I have not regularly used my 28 / 85 combo on the Z 7 because I don't really like the MF of both. Maybe got to try more and harder. That's the reason to keep the D750 around (in fact, even the 12 MP of my old D3 are enough if you get the framing right out of camera). When I am in a MF mood, on the Z 7 I use a Summilux-R 80/1.4 acompanied by a Voigtländer 35/1.2, though a good fast 28 would fit me better...
The Summilux is like the cream machine: unique rendering wide open, gaining sharpness stopped down. It is said to be 2 different lenses: one at f/1.4 and 1.7, then transitioning to a different one from about 2.3 on...
chambeshi wrote:
The DC lenses preceded the 35 f1.4G, which was followed soon after by the Neo-Noct. The 105 f1.4E is a flagship in the venerable heritage of 105 Nikkors. It was put out for the 100th Centenary but couldn't be done in a 100 FL as 105mm held the premier position in Nikon's tradition (I remain most fond of my 105 f2.5AIS on the Z7). Haruo Sato has not shied away from describing the aims behind the designs.
I would also rank the 85 f1.4AFD very highly - aka the Cream-Machine - this is a stunning opic, although some may prefer the 85 f1.4G that "replaced" it.
IMHO the R&D path since the Defocus primes (if not earlier) has been to optimize acuity with 3D rendering. The 105 f1.4 testifies to optimal success in this objective. This combo of acuity and 3D aimed primarily at portrait genres but all these Nikkors also revel in imaging a great wealth of other subjects :-) As we know all too well!
There are the links above wrt the origins of the Neo-Noct, and here's the useful context I've read about the 105 f1.4E :-
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0059/index.htm
“Nikon has recently released the new AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED, a 105mm lens that inherits the concept and ideas behind the traditional AI Nikkor 105mm f/1.8S while supporting the latest technical advances. This lens was developed with the same design concept as the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G in mind. That is, “improved three-dimensional rendering characteristics”. While images captured with the AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED are just a little sharper than those captured with the 58mm f/1.4G, overall image characteristics are the same. I sincerely hope that you will try this latest offering from Nikon.”
http://foto-info.si/review-of-nikon-af-s-105mm-f1-4e-ed-and-comparison-with-nikon-af-s-85mm-f1-4g/
According to the cost of the lens, we would expect an excellent lens, and this also is the case, despite the fact that it is made in China. Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4G is considered one of the best portrait lenses, that can be bought. From now on Nikon AF-S 105mm f/1.4E ED, will take over this role, it has a sharper image, gives better contrast has fewer CA, practically no optical image distortion and provides excellent bokeh. However, I believe that many photographers who have an 85mm portrait lens are more likely to remain with the 85mm lens. Focal length 105mm really shines when we have some more space around, namely, the difference is not large but it can be crucial with shooting indoors, where 85 mm in some cases would be more appropriate. Also, the sheer weight of the 105mm will not be suitable for some photographers, and finally it is a very expensive lens.
Kry27 wrote:
Where did you focus, if you don't mind sharing info? I am still not sure about whether I can use such shots/lens...
Probably not the most reliable example for scientific purposes as the actual focus point was on her elbow. (look at the bottom for the screenshot). But from a "look" perspective, I love the lens. And for the shot, IMO it is plenty sharp. But to atone...
