sputnik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
gear-nut wrote:
Okay, more with the Nikkor 58 and 105 1.4's. Simple comparisons showing falloff and resolution as best I can. The crops are from the center frame wide open. Both lenses sharpen up to as good as or better than the sensor centrally by f2. At f4 both lenses exceed/meet sensor to the Fx frame and extend usefully beyond that. Note these were taken with the hoods removed. In both cases the hood adds vignette. The 58 front element is recessed enough to not need it most of the time, but the 110's front element needs something. If I keep the 105 I will find an aftermarket hood or possibly sand the original down about ½" to remove the vignette.
Conclusions for *my uses*:
58. IMHO this lens is as good as the native GF 55 except for the extreme corners as shown wide open. The vignette does not appreciably change at f1.8, the closest aperture I can set to the 55's f1.7, but it does fade after that to what you see in the f4 image, and can be further corrected in post; but cannot be fully removed, FWIW. Given the 58 focuses faster than the native 55, and given how excellent it is optically over roughly 90% of the frame, I will call this a viable alternative to the native 55 with some added character and great bokeh. In short, it's a keeper for me over the 55. (Note -- the 58 does render some light purple fringing along high-contrast edges. Obviously easy to deal with in post, but I did not do any lens corrections of any kind for these images.)
105. Also as good as the sensor centrally, however this lens does not cover as well or as fully as the 58. The vignette never goes completely away. If I crop this lens to about the 110 effective focal, it still isn't going to match the native 110 corners at infinity; they show a bit smeary. At Fx frame of course it's great; but somewhere in between, it starts lagging behind the 110 -- call it 75% of the frame, maybe 80%. HOWEVER, at closer portrait distances, the IC improves to where it is probably a non-issue for most users even at full GFX frame. Hence a conundrum. If you use a 105/110 at infinity and need optimum corners and need the full GFX frame, this is not your lens. However if you're looking for a viable, cheaper and smaller alternative for portrait type distance uses and prefer the character and bokeh as I do to the 110, and/or can live with a net 70 or 80 MP cropped frame and slightly longer effective focal, then this lens becomes quite viable. (Note, AF is not quite as fast on the 105 as the native LM 110, but it's pretty close and certainly faster than say the 85.)
Speaking only for myself, I rarely need perfect corners -- if I do, I'll use a different lens or crop these to Fx if I ever decide to do something critical like stitch with them. Hence, given my uses and the fact I was able to purchase the Fringer and both of these lenses used for about what I sold my 110 for, I feel I am well set with this pairing for the reasons I wanted both these prime focal lengths. Obviously your needs may be different, but I hope this quick synopsis and example images help. ...Show more →
Your experience matches mine. I really enjoy the 58 and 105 on the GFX. I have the 110 but not the 55 to compare with. Another sleeper (but no AF) is the 180/2.8 ED Ais.
|
It's obvious that the stabilisation isn't as effective as OIS + IBIS, but getting focus in the right spot is a lot more important. The lens is very nice to focus manually, which is really uncommon with AF lenses. Will investigate further. 
