Nice shots. Even my 50mm F1.8g is about 90% as good as my 58mm. I just prefer the touch longer focal length (matches my eyes perfectly) and the bokeh. I'm sure your 50mm F1.4 is almost as good.
Your foliage looks a bit too green for me though. I know that is totally personal preference, but It looks like your taking out all the yellow. I'm always a sucker for yellow though so I tend to overdue it
Jason_Brook wrote:
How does the 58 compare to the 50/1.8G in terms of AF speed and accuracy? About the same?
I LOVE my 1.8G, but the bokeh is blah. You can see how nervous the bokeh is in the first photo on this page.
I'd say they are about the same. The 58 is no speed demon and the accuracy is okay, but tends to struggle in backlighting and low light in my tests. I'm also still shooting mainly at F1.4 to learn the limits of the lens so you can expect some misses at that aperture.
Bokeh is better on the 1.4g at all equiv apertures vs the 1.8g. Sharpness is about the same. 1.4 being slightly less sharp at F1.4 but sharper at F1.8.
No, I called yesterday to my local shop to see. They said any day now, but that could also mean any month
The bokeh is very impressive. Sharpness is better than what I was expecting. I printed one of my shots yesterday @ 20"x30" @ F1.4 and it was very sharp in print. I'm confident a 24x36" would be great as well, so sharpness is good enough for 99.9% of what I would ever want to print.
Jason_Brook wrote:
I really enjoy the look the 58 makes, but the price is a tough pill to swallow for the marginal differences over lenses for a fraction of the price.
Have you compared it against the sig yet?
There are many Sig images posted around here, how do you feel about the overall look of the images? They are razor sharp, but, they have a sterile look IMO. It probably has to do with contrast and the fact that they are SOOC. I think I would rather see Sigs that have been processed.
James R wrote:
There are many Sig images posted around here, how do you feel about the overall look of the images? They are razor sharp, but, they have a sterile look IMO. It probably has to do with contrast and the fact that they are SOOC. I think I would rather see Sigs that have been processed.
They don't look $900 good IMO. I agree, they have a sterile look. I'd rather see someone shoot the Sig and 58 together, not necessarily the same image, but at least the same post processing.
What is the deal with the weather sealing on this lens? Is it sealed like the 70-200mm or is it just moisture/dust resistant with the rubber mount and nothing else? Nikon's website doesn't say much about it.
Jason_Brook wrote:
They don't look $900 good IMO. I agree, they have a sterile look. I'd rather see someone shoot the Sig and 58 together, not necessarily the same image, but at least the same post processing.
The near-field bokeh on the Sigma is actually very nice. Once the subject distance increases though the bokeh is a bit busier and doesn't appear to match the 58 or 50L.
Jason_Brook wrote:
They don't look $900 good IMO. I agree, they have a sterile look. I'd rather see someone shoot the Sig and 58 together, not necessarily the same image, but at least the same post processing.
The Siggy doesn't look $900 good, but the 58G looks $1600 good?
I'd agree that the 50 Art has a more sterile look to it- the 58G is Nikon's 'answer' to Canon's 50L, and has the character to compete- but I'd argue heavily that the 50 Art is still almost certainly worth the price of entry, especially if the first-party options are too expensive.
The 50 Art also comes off more as a 'utility' lens, and seems like it would fit in more with a PJ-style of shooting, something I do more; if I were looking for a pure portrait lens, I'd pay up for the 58G/50L, of course.
Jason_Brook wrote:
Subject at distance is what matters to me. I love shooting "wide" with a 50. The 1.8G and 1.4G do decently, but I'd love something a bit smoother.
Keep in mind the 58 has a modest "unfair" bokeh advantage owing to its longer focal length. Even at equivalent framing/DOF the 58 will have more apparent background blur vs 50's.
johnctharp wrote:
The Siggy doesn't look $900 good, but the 58G looks $1600 good?
I'd agree that the 50 Art has a more sterile look to it- the 58G is Nikon's 'answer' to Canon's 50L, and has the character to compete- but I'd argue heavily that the 50 Art is still almost certainly worth the price of entry, especially if the first-party options are too expensive.
The 50 Art also comes off more as a 'utility' lens, and seems like it would fit in more with a PJ-style of shooting, something I do more; if I were looking for a pure portrait lens, I'd pay up for the 58G/50L, of course. ...Show more →
I agree that these are different lenses for different purposes. However, for PJ work, I'd still go with the 24-70 N or the 35 Art.
I agree that these are different lenses for different purposes. However, for PJ work, I'd still go with the 24-70 N or the 35 Art.
As a general recommendation, absolutely; it's just that I find that my PJ 'style' befits 50mm best; I could make it work with and 85mm just as well as a 35mm, given that my feet move quite well, but I enjoy the 'impact' that 50mm provides when framing closely, versus 35mm where you'd essentially shoot from the same distance, just getting more into the frame. Of course, I'm not a PJ by trade; that's just how I like to shoot a lot of event work I do, some at personal gatherings and some while 'on the job'.
