Thanks for sharing! The only thing your review is missing is a good, real world comparison (i.e. people shots) between the 58, 50, and 85, all of which you mentioned in the review. I get a great sense of depth in your images, but it's difficult to quantify that feeling without seeing where the other lenses lack.
The extra 8mm seems to help a bit to control perspective distortion while remaining a very natural field of view (Shoulders aren't as huge as I would expect coming from a 50 1.4 G).
Thanks for the review and the test images- this lens is downright gorgeous!
photoguycanada wrote:
Yes, someone should really compared this 58 1.4 to the 85 1.4
Not a real-world test, but I find DxO does a pretty good job and dileneating the differences between lenses. Particularly, note the better vignetting and CA performance of the 58G, both of which contribute to higher perceived sharpness by lowering the need for post-processing corrections that would otherwise rob sharpness from images taken in situations where the lens is pushed. I included the 50L since it's mentioned in the review and is most known for it's rendering and used the D600 as the Nikon body to control for resolution.
Thank you for sharing reesem. I have been waiting for such feedback.
But it raises a question for me - if you mostly use f1.8 on this lens and you rank the 50g f1.8 as sharpest wide open, what does the high price really get you ? Just the nano-coating ?
digicV wrote:
Thank you for sharing reesem. I have been waiting for such feedback.
But it raises a question for me - if you mostly use f1.8 on this lens and you rank the 50g f1.8 as sharpest wide open, what does the high price really get you ? Just the nano-coating ?
It gets you crazy nice bokeh and super smooth transitions... and the lens is SHARP enough at 1.4 too.
This lens wasn't designed to be supremely sharp, it was designed to render a unique image with pleasing bokeh, almost no coma, and very little vignetting... or at least that's what Nikon says.
@Hardcore: that's a great point about comparing the 85mm 1.4. Unfortunately, I don't have any side by side comparison images at the moment, since I use both lenses for very different purposes (85 is my tele during wedding ceremonies and receptions, while the 58 is my closer-in for getting ready photos and model shoots). I'll see if I can make some side by side comparisons during a shoot, and post here.
@digicV: the price gets you the look and character of the lens. It's just really different from portrait lenses I've used prior, esp. with how it gives an ethereal feel to the images. The nano coating is definitely nice, but it's really just icing on the cake for this piece of glass.
However....the 100% crops look much different from a 36.3 mp camera than they do from a 12.2 & 16 mp cameras. The D800/E reveals all flaws in a lens.
.......And to show all of you that have this 58mm, including myself, how low the coma is at the edges at f/1.4. I took a five minute exposure of the night sky using my AstroTrac and took a shot of the sky (constellation Sculptor) and I included a 100% crop of the extreme upper right corner. I chose this corner since it was the worst of the four corners but all corners were fairly equal in appearance.
It is a great lens and I too will keep it for good. I just want to shoot some portraits with it, hopefully soon. F/1.4 astronomy is no longer a dream, it's a reality with this lens. I just have to remove some CA with capture NX2 because it is visible with this lens at f/1.4 when imaging tiny points of light such as stars.
@low325: Thank you!!
@Todd: thanks for sharing! I actually have yet to use this lens on some night scenes hehe.
@James R: of course not...
@robert829: both lenses render people extremely well, and if you're deciding between the two, I'd say it comes down to how close you normally are to your subjects when shooting.
