Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

Ade

@TTJ

Um, first of all, that's also the wrong chart. That's the field map for acutance, not sharpness. Hint: they are not the same, and DxO measures both. Second hint: one is an integral of the other.

Also, you realize you're comparing data from three different cameras right? And that DxO reports the camera-lens combination?

I've already posted the correct DxO sharpness comparison for the two Nikon lenses using the same camera (D800) and aperture (f/1.4).

Edit to add that even using DxO's definition of acutance, the DxO data for the 50/1.4 is still superior to the 58mm when using the same camera (D800) at f/1.4. This is to be expected since one measure is an integral of the other.

Elvishefer

@TTJ

For the cheap seats, I don't have a problem with the lens.

I have a problem with the lens being offered for sale at its price.

It's good.

It's not good enough to warrant its high cost.

Value for money - it isn't there.

Same lens priced closer to $1k - it'd be there.

donaldejose

"Good lens, not a great one." Time will tell. Perhaps it will develop a reputation as "the bokeh king or the 3D king." No one seem to be complaining about bokeh or points of light on the end of the frame photographed in darkness. All complaints seem to be lack of sharpness at f1.4. A lens can be a great lens even though it has a weakness in one area.

I will use PitchBlack's comments as an example:
- "the 85/1.4g which has **horrible** longitudinal chromatic aberration"
and
- "I get such fantastic results with the 85/1.4g in terms of both sharpness *and* bokeh"

donaldejose

Agreed. Although there are post processing adjustments which do produce some increase in sharpness you do want to start with the sharpest image you can if sharpness is important to you. Hopefully, the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 will moot this entire issue because it will have both great sharpness and great bokeh and great separation. No one will really care about the Nikon 58mm f1.4 anymore and then Sigma can move on to produce an 85mm f1.4 which is better than Nikon's and half the price!

michael66

No Ade they are not.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.4G-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-58mm-F14G-versus-EF50mm-f-1.2L-USM___199_0_1254_0_197_0

Oddly, the 1.8 has a higher score than either...

Golf007sd

Agreed. Although there are post processing adjustments which do produce some increase in sharpness you do want to start with the sharpest image you can if sharpness is important to you. Hopefully, the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 will moot this entire issue because it will have both great sharpness and great bokeh and great separation. No one will really care about the Nikon 58mm f1.4 anymore and then Sigma can move on to produce an 85mm f1.4 which is better than Nikon's and half the price!

A word of caution: though we all look forward in seeing other manufacturers, produce and bring new 50mm to the market, their previous successes does not mean that the same will hold true for their up-and-coming new products. Take Sigma for example...yes their 35mm 1.4 is outstanding; in fact, it is the only non-Nikon lens in my bag. Moreover, I have said that if their new 50mm lens offers the same level of performance (after some reviews come out and such) I will pre-order one just to make sure I get one. Yet, I'm "not holding my breath." With so much hype around the Art series, it is going to be hard for them to hit a "home run." Being consistent is not an easy task.

Photobug

I continue to linger reading the comments on the 58mm F1.4. I just wanted to thank everyone for the excellent comments and opinions. Good stuff and educational.

Emcee

I think I stand somewhere in the middle of all of this...

I agree sharpness is important but only to a certain degree. If it looks sharp at 50% zoom then we should be good, but if you're sad that a lens is not sharp at 200% at f/1.4 you're just being ridiculous. I believe Nikon developed the lens to be used wide open but using a lens wide open does not mean it's portrait sharp wide open, and as TTJ said (and is typically true) most lenses are not sharpest wide open so why would we expect this one to be any different.

Yes I am aware that other lens are sharper at f/1.4 but I honestly believe this lens is about character and not sharpness, and if you think about it, it was modeled after the original Noct which by NO means was it sharp at 1.2 or even 1.4. So...why would we expect it's successor to be ultra sharp wide open.

I think Nikon achieved what they set out to do, a decently sharp lens that can be used wide open with great bokeh, little coma and little vignetting for use wide open.

donaldejose

Sure looks sharp enough to me. But the test numbers don't lie either, it isn't as sharp as hopefully the new 50mm f1.4 sigma will be.

WestEndBoy

That looks great Pitchblack, certainly better than my 50 1.4G can do, but maybe not quite what my 85 1.4G can do.

I am not going to quibble over whether it is a $1,700 or a $1,300 lens. I am just happy to have a professional grade standard lens with autofocus and great bokeh. This lens will make it into my bag.

Ade

Any examples with the focus point not at the center? That's the big question for me.

Also the pic looks like quite a bit of bicubic sharpening applied in post? How does it look unsharpened?

WestEndBoy

Donaldejose, what are your shooting that requires more sharpness than this? Not saying that there isn't anything. But I can see what Pitchblack shoots and appreciate his demands. He seems content for the most part.

Perhaps a different question. Do you think the Sigma will give you more sharpness while matching the 58 in other areas of IQ? This is where the rubber hits the road. What aspects of a lens IQ are important to you?

WestEndBoy

Any examples with the focus point not at the center? That's the big question for me.

That will be interesting. If the lens is sharp corner to corner its documented field curvature will make it look soft in the corner. If you have an example as Ade suggested, then the lens is sharp from corner to corner but just suffers field curvature, which will not be important unless you are shooting test charts.

WestEndBoy

That looks pretty impressive. On DXOmark, this lens tested extremely well for chromatic aberration.

I haven't tested the 58 it to your extent (not by a mile), just a lot of shots in the store on a DF. But I did some careful shots comparing my 50mm 1.4G to my 85mm 1.4G. Even my wife thinks the 50mm is a "piece of junk".

donaldejose

jshickele: All I am saying it that this one photo surely seems sharp enough and the colors are pretty. Those are two points of data. Another point of data is test charts which show softness at f1.4. Another point of data is a midframe circular pattern of unsharpness noted by reviewers as field curvature. Another point of data is . . . . and so it goes. No one point of data is everything. That's all. We don't know yet what sharpness or bokeh the 50mm f1.4 Sigma Art will prove to have. Will it be superior or not for half the cost? I certainly don't know and neither does anyone else at this time. Expectations for it are high due to Sigma's recent "knock em out of the ball park home runs" but we really have to wait and see what comes off the production line.

WestEndBoy

jshickele: All I am saying it that this one photo surely seems sharp enough and the colors are pretty. Those are two points of data. Another point of data is test charts which show softness at f1.4. Another point of data is a midframe circular pattern of unsharpness noted by reviewers as field curvature. Another point of data is . . . . and so it goes. No one point of data is everything. That's all. We don't know yet what sharpness or bokeh the 50mm f1.4 Sigma Art will prove to have. Will it be superior or not for half the cost? I certainly don't know and neither does anyone else at this time. Expectations for it are high due to Sigma's recent "knock em out of the ball park home runs" but we really have to wait and see what comes off the production line.

Fair enough. But what I am saying is that sharpness is just one aspect of lens performance (call it a point of data). The chromatic aberration that DXO Mark has tested and the pretty colours and bokeh that I have tested myself, others have commented on and Pitchblack has shown us are other "points of data". Other significant points of data are consistency between production units, future Nikon camera compatibility, depth and breadth of the whole line (if Sigma puts Nikon out of business, everything in all our bags is worthless), build quality, manual focus precision and smoothness, future manufacturer service and support and cost which cannot be considered without considering resale value (is a $1,000 lens that is worth $200 in 10 years really that much cheaper than a $1,700 lens that is worth $1,300 in 10 years). Some of these "significant" points of data will not be known until the lens line is 10 years old, so the most reliable and conservative point of data is the history of the manufacturer.

Once sharpness is good enough (and the 58 is good enough for me), further sharpness is of minimal value. The other points of data become important and if one of those points are not good enough on a certain lens, then even if that lens is superior in every other respect, the lens that is good enough on all points is making it into my bag.

And the 58mm is much more than good enough in those other areas, either because we can see it (colour or bokeh) or Nikon has a consistent decades long track record on all of the "other significant points of data" that I have listed above.

In fairness to Sigma, they have hit a home run on the 35mm 1.4 in regards to optical quality and I am considering it despite the fact that it is unproven on some of the "other significant points of data". Hell, the optics are good and if it is an unserviceable piece of junk in 10 years, $1,000 is not a big amount to risk on one lens. I am closely watching the first reviews of the 35mm 1.8 to see if I can discern how Nikon will respond to this when it eventually updates the 35mm 1.4G (I have no doubt that Nikon can better Sigma if it wants to).

So I will wait and see what this 50mm 1.4 "Art" delivers because Sigma deserves a fair shake. However, I am a bokeh fanboy if the bokeh is not as good as the 58, then the Sigma is not getting into my bag.

TaoTeJared

That will be interesting. If the lens is sharp corner to corner its documented field curvature will make it look soft in the corner. If you have an example as Ade suggested, then the lens is sharp from corner to corner but just suffers field curvature, which will not be important unless you are shooting test charts.

It does not suffer from field curvature - it was designed to have it. Field curvature is what gives a lens the 3d character.

Flat field designs like the 50 1.8g, Sig 35 1.4, all macros and a slug of others lack the natural 3d pop and character of great lenses. Flat field have their uses and excel in landscape, macro, copy, etc., but it does not mean they are superior.

Ade

Flat field designs like the 50 1.8g, Sig 35 1.4, all macros and a slug of others lack the natural 3d pop and character of great lenses. Flat field have their uses and excel in landscape, macro, copy, etc., but it does not mean they are superior.

Yet according to Zeiss, their excellent 55/1.4 Otus was specifically designed to have extremely low field curvature:

"(This) is first time that the Distagon type has been selected for the optical construction of a standard lens. … Only this optical design (has) extremely low image field curvature at a very large initial aperture":

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_ca/camera_lenses/otus/otus1455.html

As a result the Otus has a very small field curvature for a normal lens. The field curvature is only very slightly under-corrected as a compromise vs. astigmatism and spherical aberrations.

(Not to mention, even without the Distagon design, regular Zeiss "Planar" lenses generally have low field curvature anyway -- in fact the "Planar" name was originally chosen to specifically denote a flat field curvature lens design.)

TaoTeJared

What is your point Ade? It is a flat field design.

This is what I said:
"Flat field have their uses and excel in landscape, macro, copy, etc., but it does not mean they are superior."

Ade

What is your point Ade? It is a flat field design.

This is what I said:
"Flat field have their uses and excel in landscape, macro, copy, etc., but it does not mean they are superior."

I notice you omitted the first part of that quotation:

Flat field designs like the 50 1.8g, Sig 35 1.4, all macros and a slug of others lack the natural 3d pop and character of great lenses.

Yet there are many fantastic lenses with "3d pop and character" utilizing flat field designs. Including the 55 Otus and a slew of other Zeiss lenses. That is the point.

Also, macro lenses often have more field curvature, not less, at non-macro distances.

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: One of the reasons that Nikon chose to make this lens not as robust as their 85 1.4G or other 2.8's is: to keep the weight down. This allows the end user to shoot all day long and not have the weight of the lens be a burden on them. The build quality of the 58 1.4G, is very much in-line with the 24 1.4G & 85 1.4G...we all know how well these two perform thus their is no need for me to elaborate on them.

donaldejose

The build quality issue raises a question I have had. When you look at the glass inside this lens it certainly seems Nikon bulked it up with a lot more plastic than was needed. Does it really have to be so large in diameter? Does the front lens element really have to sit so far back? Was Nikon deliberately trying to make it look much bigger than it actually is? Is this like the new larger box of cereal at the grocery store which really is only about 3/4 full and the cereal you get could really all fit into a box 3/4th smaller but the manufacture is visually tricking people into thinking they are getting more than they are? What is with all this plastic bulk?

WestEndBoy

I suspected the same when I first saw that. However it will reduce flare. Also, and this may be most important, it gives you something to grab onto when using manual focus. My dinky little 50 1.4G is harder to manual focus than my 85 1.4G.

TaoTeJared

@TTJ: I can totally understand why you would want a lens without the field curvature corrected... but the truth is that it's easier to design a lens where it is not corrected, so it shouldn't be more expensive.

Like I've said, I think the lens is really nice, but it's not a higher quality lens. The truth is that the lens is VERY plasticky. Everything on it is plastic except the place where it mounts on the camera. When you hold it in your hands it actually feels cheaper than the Sigma 35/1.4. I truly believe that they aren't charging more because it's higher quality, they are charging more because no doubt there is a much higher markup.

I agree flat field designs are more difficult to create but with all due respect, how a lens is designed is not dependent on what is easier or harder to achieve - it's about what the designers want for it's end use.

The plastic-y feel... Every lens has it, or it's update will. Same arguments were made when Nikon F-501/N2020 was released and for the next 10 years - hell even some make the same arguments today even if it is a mute point. Lenses are no different. High quality polymers have been used in guns and industrial tools for decades now.

TaoTeJared

Not questioning in what you are seeing at all but if you are working on something..
I would be interested in how much zoomed in and/or cropped you saw it very noticeably. As you well know, a 50% crop of D800 files are like 80% crop of 16mp sensor D4.
I guess what I'm interested in is at what point does it look different (in crispness) with your Sig 50 or the Nikkor 50 1.4. Also at what distance you are shooting at or the amount of crop with any image examples.

I'm tempted to rent it and the New Sig when it comes out and do a full shoot out of all my 50s. Personally I don't care nor see the point in how a 50 compares to any other focal length. I use each focal length differently and each focal range renders subject differently.

I know I have posted this before, but just for reference of focal length and rendering of subjects: