Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: I had a feeling that the 58 1.4G would not meet your taste shooting it wide-open. Still, I'm looking forward in read your feedback at it relates to the look of the subject, color, contrast, CA etc..etc.

Lastly, I really think one needs to play with this lens a bit to fully understand how it is used best. You, yourself have made that very clear. So perhaps it is best that you used it a few times before you are able to fully take a position on it....if you know what I mean.

WestEndBoy

The following point is not quite relevant to this discussion, but this has me thinking of something. I read the old reviews of the 58mm 1.2 and how good it was at certain things (Coma) and how mediocre it was at other things (Chromatic Abberation and sharpness). I then think about the 58mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4. Neither of these lens has any significant coma while the 58mm 1.2, the "all star coma performer" in its day, has oodles more then either of these two modern lenses.

When I shoot my 50mm 1.2 MF I also think about this. The chromatic aberration at 1.2 is obvious on the LCD screen and when I crop in it is really obvious. It is annoying in some circumstances but sometimes produces a nice dreamy effect. Yet some of the old review shots on older digital cameras, while they point this out, do not think it is such the big deal. When I look at those crops from older cameras, it looks less obvious than on my D800.

So a couple of things seem to be happening:

1.
Lenses are getting better and better optically.
2.
Cameras are getting better and better in resolution terms.

So there is an "arms race" of sorts going on. Nobody would have complained about the performance of the 58mm 1.4 in the days of the 58mm 1.2. Yet today.......

Both cameras and lenses are getting better. It will be interesting to see if one outpaces the other and starts putting pressure on it. I predict that cameras will be doing the outpacing over the next 10 years and we will start seeing a lot more complaints about lens sharpness. It will then be interesting to see how the manufacturers respond to this. Then when cameras are at 150 megapixels, will people decide that more is meaningless until lenses have caught up. Perhaps that is when medium format, where lenses have higher resolution, comes back into vogue?

Paperman

I am glad someone came up with "in field" results matching MTF charts on page 1. .

Never understood why MTF charts/line tests should NOT be relied on when judging lens sharpness !

WestEndBoy

I am glad someone came up with "in field" results matching MTF charts on page 1. .

Never understood why MTF charts/line tests should NOT be relied on when judging lens sharpness !

There are a variety of reasons that they should be taken with a grain of salt. There is no "standard" that will consistently produce the same results across testors. For example, I would not trust a DXOMark MTF chart against a Nikon or Canon MTF chart or visa versa. However, I would trust two Nikon charts of different lenses or two DXOMark charts of different lenses.

Also, MTF charts are also often based on testing techniques that do not consider field curvature, which the 58mm 1.4 suffers from on the edge. However, Pitchblack's issue seems to be with centre softness, which is not related to field curvature (Pitchblack, correct me if I am wrong or jumping ahead of your upcoming review).

Paperman

I made the comment on a humorous note ...

When MTF charts for Nikon lenses were posted on page 1 in October and when some were saying what an incredible lens it was, I just glanced at the graphs for a minute and commented ( on P:2 ) that the 58mm did not look to be sharp. ( I won't write it all again ). And then of course, I had to listen to why one can't look at test/MTF charts to judge sharpness and all the mumbo jumbo.

Months later, here we are - MTF results confirmed by actual users; many of those high opinions on the lens lowered/changed.

Just saying, having faith in science/numbers - not a bad thing after all ....

WestEndBoy

Agreed, but with a few caveats. I admit that I look at those charts too.

Ade

It is kinda fun seeing our various forum "experts" interpret the MTF curves at that time. I couldn't conclude much other than the bokeh was going to be good. Paperman you were right on.

Some of the other explanations were way off base.

Golf007sd

One thing that I will be doing, regardless of which 50mm I end up getting this year, is to make sure that the lens and body are fully calibrated to one another. Not that I'm saying that the lens you used PitchBlack was not, but it sure help to eliminate such lens & body characteristics.

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: I'm pleased to hear that. As for the image above...well done. The colors and skin tone are fantastic as it the out of focus area.

How about posting a few that you found unacceptable?

Ironheart

It seems to me that if the camera's focus calibration (fine tune) is set for a certain distance, say 10 feet, and backing up from there that the center sharpness drops off, this must be an issue with the lens itself not playing nicely with the PDAF. It would be interesting to see how CDAF (live view focus) would perform at the same, longer, distance.
There is a reason that Sigma gives you the ability to calibrate focus at four different focus distances.

proudgeek

Interesting. I think your image looks pretty great, but then I saw what your girlfriend posted and yes, her's appear to be sharper. Just out of curiosity, what lens what she shooting?

proudgeek

So her's are sharper in that they show more detail (including skin imperfections), but there's something about yours that's really interesting. It's a quality that I can't put my finger on. We all love sharpness in a lens, but I suppose there's more to a great image than sharpness alone. I'm sure there are technical terms for what I'm talking about, but I just don't have the vocabulary to articulate it.

CEBlueclouds

@ PitchBlack and Proudgeek....In my own humble untrained opinion.. I find PitchBlack's version much more pleasant to the eye.....

TaoTeJared

@PitchBlack - You don't happen to have a 60mm macro laying around do you? It would be interesting to see the difference between the 58 & the 60mm. I use mine quite a bit with children & babies, mostly due to working close and needing the close focus capabilities. At that closeness you have to be at f4-f8 to have acceptable DOF along with knocking the background light down. I know the close focus would be limited, but it would be interesting to see the sharpness of the two at f2.8+

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: Split the cost of the lens with your girlfriend.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@pithcblack i like that shot. Looks like her face is 3D.
Just a thought I feel the same as you with the 24-70 but 50-70 i like it best. Why not use the 24-70 at 58mm?

WestEndBoy

He can use the 58mm 1.4 at 2.8 and get way better bokeh and it will probably be sharper.

Vipmediastar_JZ

thanks for your reply.

I forgot and didn't consider the fact that primes do have an advantage over zoom's.

Like you said for a wedding the zoom 24-70 comes in handy. I was at a car show this weekend and with people in the way the 24-70 did the job well as apposed to taking a prime like the 35mm.

I'll probably still rent it with the DF for a day and shoot at 2.8 if not just mount my 85mm 1.8g on it. I like how your pics and Jelena's came out.

Emcee

@PitchBlack did you ever do any fine tuning to your 58? I've read a lot about it backfocusing and from looking at the images that aren't quite sharp seems this could be your issue.

Just curious as to what all you did to remedy its "issues"? Love your shots BTW

Edit: Disregard I reread the entire post and found your adjustments.

Golf007sd

Emcee

The review agrees with about what everyone else is saying. It's slightly sharper than the 50 f/1.4G and probably not worth the price.

I still think photographylife had the best review and most accurate description of what this lens is about. Basically it's not ultra sharp at f/1.4 but it has a certain quality that some people will pay the premium for.

Nikon could make an ultra sharp 50 if they wanted to (like the 50 f/1.8), but they wanted something that had more character and I'm tending to agree.

Emcee

So... I bit the bullet.

I was on Ebay and I just happened to find a 58mm at a discount so I pulled the trigger. Guess someone was really unhappy with the performance/price ratio. Thought I'd give it a run, if not I probably can make most of my money back on a resale.

Some thoughts:

• focus is slowish, only due to long focus throw
• lens is big, but elements are small
• f/1.4 performance is not ultra sharp, but useable in certain situations
• by f/2-f/2.2 it's pretty damn sharp
• rendering is nice, just a nice shooting lens

If anyone is interested in something regarding this lens, please let know and I'll try and help you with an answer if I can.

donaldejose

Here is my question. Yes, it is sharp at f2 or f2.8 but not at f1.4. So if you are going to shoot it at f2 and higher why not just use the Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens? If you cannot shoot the 58mm at f.14 due to inadequate sharpness why buy it? Is its bokeh that much better?

Emcee

If I needed a sharp picture at f/1.8 sure I could use the 50, but images aren't always about sharpness. For me it is quite usable at f/1.4 as long as you are not pixel peeping. Just like the image that Pitchblack posted...looks plenty sharp for me.

Bokeh is so subjective it's really not worth arguing about, but I do think it is slight better. Much smoother, softer transitions.

To me the best part is the 3D effect from the lens, it really immerses me into the photo.

ANTCT1

I have both the Nikon 50 F1.8G and the 58 F1.4G. They are two totally different lenses for totally different purposes. As a guy who has been taking photos for nearly 50 years, I am mystified by the increasing obsession with sharpness.

Most of the greatest pictures ever taken were not ultra sharp, they just looked fantastic, even hypnotic! Very few photographers are ever going to make prints bigger than 36"x24" so why the sharpness obsession? I believe it is because people can read sharpness scores and rankings but have never had the opportunity to understand what makes a photo truly great. This obsession is fueled by well-meaning testing sites that take pictures of flat charts at a around 40X focal distance under controlled conditions and then pontificate. IMHO, it is like photography is progressing back to a "flat earth" era!

That is absolutely not how most photos are actually taken in the real world, professional or otherwise. Of course there are exceptions, just as years ago when I needed to shoot for a billboard I would hire a 'blad or make up a jig for reproducing precious documents (before photocopiers and scanners existed).

The earth is not flat, people's faces are not flat, animals are not flat and most photographic objects are not flat so why obsess with "sharp, flat" lenses? Just where is the potential for creativity in that?

For portraiture, most human subjects do not want absolute sharpness because there are very few near-flawless complexions around and super-sharp lenses can magnify every fault. What is admired is an "empathetic rendering" of the face. Sharp enough to emphasisz desirable features but not too sharp to bring out all the "faults". This especially applies to photos of "not so young looking" people. In short, people want to look better in a photo than in real life and any photographer than can produce that will have more work than those who cannot, no matter how "clinically sharp" their lens is according to some "flat earth" lens testing site.

Over the years, certain lenses developed a reputation for their ability to render a certain "look" that made them stand out from the crowd. Invariably, these lenses made the subject look really wonderful and I can never remember any customer ever looking at these photos with a magnifying glass checking for eyelash separation, not even the cosmetic companies with mascara ads. If the photo looked great and projected the desired image, it was the one used because an outstanding looking photo will sell.

I suggest photographic enthusiasts spend more time understanding what make a standout photo and less time debating absolute sharpness scores from meaningless, for the most part, lens comparisons taken of subjects they will never shoot for reward in real life.

After a few short weeks with the Nikon 58 F1.4G, I believe that this lens will become a classic for the sophisticated way it can render uniquely stunning images that command attention and differentiate themselves from the everyday. I will also keep the 50 F1.8G for its capabilities in other areas.