The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
p.42 #1The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Iluxa007 wrote:
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
I just made a few photobooks and one of them has quite a few shots that are OOF. Not a single person has said a word about it. No one gives a damn if it's OOF if the content is good.
This being one of them....
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
I just made a few photobooks and one of them has quite a few shots that are OOF. Not a single person has said a word about it. No one gives a damn if it's OOF if the content is good.
This being one of them....
Oct 02, 2014 at 07:09 PM
p.42 #2The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Iluxa007 wrote:
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?
Oct 02, 2014 at 07:11 PM
p.42 #3The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Oct 02, 2014 at 07:20 PM
p.42 #4The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Jason_Brook wrote:
I thought about the D750, then I remembered I have a D4
. You're only loving the D750 so much because you got used to the "autofocus" of the DF 
Df does fine.
DSC_6739 by Lawman1967, on Flickr
Df with 58/1.4 @ f/1.4
I thought about the D750, then I remembered I have a D4
. You're only loving the D750 so much because you got used to the "autofocus" of the DF Df does fine.
DSC_6739 by Lawman1967, on FlickrDf with 58/1.4 @ f/1.4
Oct 02, 2014 at 08:26 PM
p.42 #5The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Hardcore wrote:
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?
Quite a few, including myself.
Jason_Brook wrote:
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!
Iluxa007 wrote
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Quite a few, including myself.
Jason_Brook wrote:
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!
Oct 03, 2014 at 03:35 AM
p.42 #6The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Iluxa007 wrote:
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!
I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.
1.4 is the best though ;)
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.
 |
||
 |
||
|
1.4 is the best though ;)
Oct 03, 2014 at 07:42 AM
p.42 #7The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Hardcore wrote:
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.
Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
Oct 03, 2014 at 09:04 AM
p.42 #8The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Forget about sharpness, this lens IS AMAZING.
_DSC7283fb by b4rb3cue, on Flickr
_DSC7283fb by b4rb3cue, on FlickrOct 03, 2014 at 10:54 AM
p.42 #10The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Iluxa007 wrote:
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situations
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situations
Oct 03, 2014 at 10:57 AM
|
p.42 #11The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Jason_Brook wrote:
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situations
Skip the 135 and go straight to the 200mm f2.
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
Skip the 135 and go straight to the 200mm f2.
Oct 03, 2014 at 11:00 AM
p.42 #12The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Hardcore wrote:
Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situationsSkip the 135 and go straight to the 200mm f2.
Oh no, not you too. Joseph already gave me enough grief about not owning that lens.
I'm pretty content with my eclectic mix of lenses; 16-35, 28, 58, 85, 135/2
Jason_Brook wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
Oh no, not you too. Joseph already gave me enough grief about not owning that lens.
I'm pretty content with my eclectic mix of lenses; 16-35, 28, 58, 85, 135/2
Oct 03, 2014 at 11:15 AM
p.42 #13The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Jason_Brook wrote:
It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situationsSkip the 135 and go straight to the 200mm f2.
Oh no, not you too. Joseph already gave me enough grief about not owning that lens.
I'm pretty content with my eclectic mix of lenses; 16-35, 28, 58, 85, 135/2
Ya, I want it. Doubt I need it. I have the 300mm VRII so I can't own both. I like the reach I get for wildlife with the 300mm, but damn that 200mm f2 is amazing.
Hardcore wrote
Jason_Brook wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Quite a few, including myself.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
I'm pretty content with my eclectic mix of lenses; 16-35, 28, 58, 85, 135/2
Ya, I want it. Doubt I need it. I have the 300mm VRII so I can't own both. I like the reach I get for wildlife with the 300mm, but damn that 200mm f2 is amazing.
Oct 03, 2014 at 11:17 AM
p.42 #14The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Jason_Brook wrote:
Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situations
---------------------------------------------
Hardcore wrote:
Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situationsSkip the 135 and go straight to the 200mm f2.
I tried both. Sold both. if I wasn't shooting weddings, I'd be all over 135 f2.
I am PATIENTLY waiting on the release of the new 135mm from Nikon (if that ever happens)
By that time, I'll quit weddings. I don't really enjoy shooting when it becomes a job...
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
While editing the latest 3 weddings I shot in September using the 58mm, I must say this: When comparing images shot with a 58mm vs 70-200VRII, the 58mm wins hands down when it comes to portraiture and really, pretty much anything... The look, the feel and the colors are just amazing.Sometimes I think to myself “what if the client will want to print large, how good/sharp will an image from a 58mm look?” ...And I end up grabbing the 70-200VRII coz’ it’s much sharper than the 58mm.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
---------------------------------------------
Hardcore wrote:
Jason_Brook wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
I tried both. Sold both. if I wasn't shooting weddings, I'd be all over 135 f2.
I am PATIENTLY waiting on the release of the new 135mm from Nikon (if that ever happens)
By that time, I'll quit weddings. I don't really enjoy shooting when it becomes a job...
Oct 03, 2014 at 11:18 AM
p.42 #15The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Iluxa007 wrote:
Quite a few, including myself.
Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situations---------------------------------------------
It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situationsSkip the 135 and go straight to the 200mm f2.
I tried both. Sold both. if I wasn't shooting weddings, I'd be all over 135 f2.
I am PATIENTLY waiting on the release of the new 135mm from Nikon (if that ever happens)
By that time, I'll quit weddings. I don't really enjoy shooting when it becomes a job...
I don't enjoy shooting as a job either. It's why I do friends and family only. Screw the money. I have a good day job. I'd rather not put up with peoples crap on the side. I had a few bad clients in a row then gave everyone the one finger salute.
Jason_Brook wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Yes, I alternate between the 58mm and the 70-200mm for my photoshoots for almost exactly the reasons you mention. The 70-200mm is damn sharp, but I have done prints with the 58mm wide open at 20x30" and they look great. Nice and sharp. My clients just aren't the kind of people to blow up images larger than that, but then I'm mainly doing family portraits and not weddings. Even weddings though, how many people really print a 20x30" to hang on their wall?Jason_Brook wrote
Wait, I just realized how dumb that statement is...Just stop the lens down. I'd say the 58 at 2.8 is going to be a hell of a lot sharper than the 70-200 @ 2.8 just because the zoom vs prime thing.
The 58 sharpens up VERY quickly, by 1.8 it is getting very sharp. At f/2 it's tack sharp.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
Hardcore wrote
Jason_Brook wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Quite a few, including myself.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
I am PATIENTLY waiting on the release of the new 135mm from Nikon (if that ever happens)
By that time, I'll quit weddings. I don't really enjoy shooting when it becomes a job...
I don't enjoy shooting as a job either. It's why I do friends and family only. Screw the money. I have a good day job. I'd rather not put up with peoples crap on the side. I had a few bad clients in a row then gave everyone the one finger salute.
Oct 03, 2014 at 11:24 AM
p.42 #16The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Jason_Brook wrote:
It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situations---------------------------------------------
Well, what I really wanted to say is that if I HAVE to shoot at f/2.8 and smaller, I'll use my 70-200 and rack it out since the compression will "compensate" for the creamy look I'm trying to get while being sharp as hell. there's no way ima use that 58mm and stop it down.
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.Now that makes more sense
You need a 135/2 for those situationsSkip the 135 and go straight to the 200mm f2.
I tried both. Sold both. if I wasn't shooting weddings, I'd be all over 135 f2.
I am PATIENTLY waiting on the release of the new 135mm from Nikon (if that ever happens)
By that time, I'll quit weddings. I don't really enjoy shooting when it becomes a job...I don't enjoy shooting as a job either. It's why I do friends and family only. Screw the money. I have a good day job. I'd rather not put up with peoples crap on the side. I had a few bad clients in a row then gave everyone the one finger salute.
You inspire me
I only shoot about a dozen weddings a year (or less) And I'm thinking of bringing the number down even lower. Maybe 3-5 a year of family & friends as well.
Photography isn't my main job and it never will. With that being said, I think it's time to close my weddingwire account. Been thinking about doing that for a while...
Iluxa007 wrote
Jason_Brook wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Quite a few, including myself.It defeats the purpose of the lens! Why own a 58mm f/1.4 and shoot at f/2.8?!
Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
Hardcore wrote
Jason_Brook wrote
Iluxa007 wrote
Hardcore wrote
I shoot at F2 quite often with this lens now and the results are still really good. If you or your clients order larger than 20x30" quite often, then you may start to notice some slight softening, but generally as the print size goes up so does the viewing distance so you should be good to go. Just oversharpen for print.Why? Because 58mm has no aperture. none. ZERO.
Fixed at 1.4
Nice shot! Warm it up a bit tho! Seems too cool for me... Or maybe it's just my monitor at work. I have a 27" iMac at home.
You need a 135/2 for those situations
I am PATIENTLY waiting on the release of the new 135mm from Nikon (if that ever happens)
By that time, I'll quit weddings. I don't really enjoy shooting when it becomes a job...
You inspire me
I only shoot about a dozen weddings a year (or less) And I'm thinking of bringing the number down even lower. Maybe 3-5 a year of family & friends as well.
Photography isn't my main job and it never will. With that being said, I think it's time to close my weddingwire account. Been thinking about doing that for a while...
Oct 03, 2014 at 11:35 AM
p.42 #17The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
I think I’ve been spamming too much about nonsense lately. So here’s another shot that actually belongs here (with an emulated hint of film processing)
Oct 03, 2014 at 03:16 PM
p.42 #18The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Iluxa007 wrote:
I think I’ve been spamming too much about nonsense lately. So here’s another shot that actually belongs here (with an emulated hint of film processing)
Dont worry about the spamming....keep posting these great shots
I think I’ve been spamming too much about nonsense lately. So here’s another shot that actually belongs here (with an emulated hint of film processing)
Dont worry about the spamming....keep posting these great shots
Oct 03, 2014 at 05:53 PM
p.42 #19The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
58/1.4 is becoming my favorite lense as well and probably stay on my D810 80-90% of the time. Here is a shot from a couple of weekends ago. I had to tweak the picture in PS a bit as I kept everything under exposed when shot to keep to flame from blowing up initially.
 |
||
 |
||
|
Oct 04, 2014 at 06:00 AM
p.42 #20The 58mm F/1.4G Thread
Candid shot of brides mother. That oval bokeh tho!!
Oct 04, 2014 at 01:57 PM