Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

SquamishPhoto

Something tells me Sigma will be making a lens just like this in the next year and it'll be under a $1000...and way better.

zernicke

@Golf007sd: I love my 70-200 VR II and it is my favorite lens, not quite so impressed with the 24-70, and my 14-24 for wide. And yes, it is more trouble changing primes, just saying that there is something magic about the 85 1.4G, especially wide open. I would never take my primes for travel, but for portraits, they are perfect. I am hopeful the 58 will be a gem. I tried the 24G and 35G 1.4 and actually liked and kept the 35 whereas i didn't find as much use for the 24 and it is the only Nikon lens I have returned. I also like the 105 2.8 macro for both portraits and product shots. Finally, I also like my tilt/shift lens but struggle to find regular use for it. In general I keep the zooms on my D3s and the primes on the D4. I just love Nikon stuff, never tried anything else.

Golf007sd

@zernicke: great set of lenses. I have everyone of the lenses you have mentioned...expect the 85 1.4G & 35 1.4...I went with the 85 1.8G and the Sigma 35 1.4. One thing you may want to consider doing is having Nikon calibrate all your lenses to your two bodies.

For portrite shooting, the 58 1.4G looks very, very promising indeed. Moreover, like yourself, I find the focal length very appealing. Much like the 24 & 35 1.4's I can see myself having it on my D4 for a great portion of a day.

I'm hoping this lens will suck in in as much light and focus speed as my 24 1.4. In fact, one of the key features that has drawn me to this lens, as of later, vs the Zeiss 55 is the AF. Much like TTJ, I would miss a lot of shot due to my lack of experience with manual focus lenses...given my style of shooting. SquamishPhoto, on the other hand has it down very well on his Zeiss.

Msmoto

@SquamishPhoto

I think I will wait for the Sigma as well.....or sell the farm and get the Zeiss......

Golf007sd

@Msmoto: How many acre's do you think have to part with? Which farm by the way? :P

Vipmediastar_JZ

Out of curiosity I checked ebay and the 58mm 1.2 is expensive.
Right now I have the 50 1.8g and I got it because it was inexpensive and for nursery pics. I hardly use it but I will soon.

+1 for waiting for sigma. Haha. Well not really. I like my 35 , 85 and im looking at tele for my next lens.

TaoTeJared

So many cheapskates - I mean Sigma Fanboys :P They can maybe beat Nikon in one measurement on one factor but it is the whole picture that creates a lens. You must see the forest through the trees. )

I would rather see sigma come out with a 1.2 and fill a gap rather than just copy Nikon and Canon. There are many would would rather have the extra stop of light than tack sharpness, etc. I hope people realize if they do, it will be another $1,000 lens.

shawnino

@TTJ: Are you at all annoyed/concerned at the simple number of sample shots provided at f/2 vs. the couple of portraits provided at f/1.4? I really wanted to pre-order this lens, but with the lack of 1.4 samples now I mostly want you to pre-order it and be ecstatic about it by New Year's so I can buy it during February rebates....

SquamishPhoto

Its under $2000, so its not going to be a true APO corrected lens and that means that all kinds of shitty stuff will happen at f1.4 Its obviously going to be a huge improvement over existing 50mm-ish lenses, but it looks like it pales pretty badly compared to the standard being set by Zeiss. Definite pass on this one.

Ade

I don't think I'll rush out and buy this lens. The example pictures are honestly underwhelming to me, nothing special. The MTF chart looks good, clearly this lens has excellent bokeh, but it's only what you'd expect for a 2013 lens at this focal length and price point.

I ask myself, will this lens help me take better pictures? Will it provide me with new creative possibilities? For me the answer is no. I already have multiple lenses near this focal length and I don't think there's enough here to make a difference to my photography.

TaoTeJared

@TTJ: Are you at all annoyed/concerned at the simple number of sample shots provided at f/2 vs. the couple of portraits provided at f/1.4? I really wanted to pre-order this lens, but with the lack of 1.4 samples now I mostly want you to pre-order it and be ecstatic about it by New Year's so I can buy it during February rebates....

Nope - That is just the same number of photos that are released with every lens. I'm not sure what any additional images will show other than how good the photographer is or isn't.

I can't put a pre-order in yet. This will be a Jan or later purchase (probably) when I fill in some stuff. Need to free up some cash and need to get either the 24-70 or 24-120 (still teetering) first, and a Nikon AW1 by mid december and I just purchased a bunch of lighting equipment. Those are Needs, (my trusty 28-70 is about to die) - this will be a desire, but one that I will fulfill at first opportunity.

WestEndBoy

I wish they would come out with a 45mm 1.4g, but I would settle for a 50mm 1.4g professional grade. My cheep 50 mm 1.4G will work until then.

But if they don't, a 35mm 1.4G / 58mm 1.4G combo might work. Nikon has to fix the 35 mm though. It will burn me to spend $2k when Sigma is optically better at half the price.

My next purchase is the 200mm macro and I only buy one lens per year. That gives Nikon 2 years to get there act together.

Golf007sd

@jshickele: In the 35mm focal length, I highly recommend looking at the new Sigma 35 1.5 Art. It rocks.

Msmoto

Yup, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a great lens....my 'normal' lens on full frame. Here it is wide open

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8682120378/in/set-72157633337107507

WestEndBoy

The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is a great optical lens. But I know if I can wait, Nikon will do better and I like the professional build quality on Nikon professional lens. It is why I bought the 50mm 1.2mf this year and will buy the 200mm 4.0 Macro before Nikon discontinues it. If I ever buy Leica, Schneider, Zeiss etc., this will be part of the reason.

Maybe the 24mm 1.4G, but I think Nikon can do better on that one too.

WestEndBoy

PitchBlack, I absolutely agree with you. But I know Nikon can do better and I am patient.

I have read some articles that also suggest Nikon anticipates future camera upgrades into lens design, something that the competition cannot do (as they don't know about it). That has kept me from fooling around with Zeiss etc. until I learn more about that. Anybody here know anything about that?

Golf007sd

TaoTeJared

Good video Golf007sd - The two things that I will have in my hands... soon and at some point in the near future.

I have read some articles that also suggest Nikon anticipates future camera upgrades into lens design, something that the competition cannot do (as they don't know about it). That has kept me from fooling around with Zeiss etc. until I learn more about that. Anybody here know anything about that?

Completely lost me on what you are speaking too. "Camera upgrades INTO lens design"? I don't understand what you are trying to say I guess.

On 24mm & 35mm upgrades - you will be waiting a very long time - probably 8+ years for an upgrade. Personally I would rather see really good but light 2.8s being released. Canon made their 35mm IS and that is what I would prefer. 2-3 stops of VR on a f2 lens is better than a 1.4 in my mind. But that is for another thread.

I just like that the 58mm isn't like the Bazooka size of a lens Zeiss OTUS 55mm f/1.4. That is part of the thought process against the Sigma 35 1.4 (and other Zeiss primes) as well - the size for a prime lens. Leica can smash the optics in a small lens that is super sharp, not sure why Nikon can't. (let's not go through the "flange distance discussion on this thread.)

The more and more I see, the more I like!

FlowtographyBerlin

IInfo for discussion:

Depth of field (DOF) @ 6ft:
50mm f/1.4 = 4.3 Inches
50mm f/1.8 = 5.4 Inches
50mm f/1.2 = 3.9 inches
58mm f/1.4 = 3.2 inches
Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 = 3.5 inches
Leica Noct 50mm f/1 = 3.1 inches

Averages:
Head = 8" deep
Nose to Ear = 5.5"
Tip of Nose to eye = 3.5"

Sorry, a very late comment on this, and maybe this has already been discussed, but there's one thing that is often confused and/or forgotten with the DOF numbers like these:

At a given framing (say you want to do a head shot), DOF will always depend exclusively on the aperture, no matter what the focal length. In other words: If you take a portrait with the head filling the frame (meaning: this is the constant), it doesn't matter whether you take a 35mm f/1.4 or a 85mm f/1.4, the DOF will be the same. Due to the difference in your distance to the subject, the perspective will look dramatically different, of course, but the DOF is the same.

So, in the above list that TTJ compiled, the lower DOF for the 58mm comes from the fact that at the same distance (6ft), you will have a tighter frame. If you were doing i.e. a portrait with one of the 50s and the head was filling the frame (usually a bad idea with a ~50mm, but anyway), and you'd switch to the 58mm, you'd need to take a step back to get the whole head into the frame again, thus increasing the distance, thus getting the same DOF value as any other f/1.4.

Maybe that's been said in the discussion, but just wanted to clear this up.

WestEndBoy

That is a good point FlowtographyBerlin.

As long as the eyes are in focus, a little bit of softness in the ears is often forgiven or not noticed.

Golf007sd

So here we go people.

Sample image of the 58 1.4G. A special thanks to David Charlesworth for sharing these images with us. All images taken on a D800.

My first impression is: Wow! I really like what I see. The lens also handles the CA and fringing very nicely. I can clearly see the difference between the the 58 1.4G and the 50 1.8G (via blog.)

TaoTeJared

Thank you David Charlesworth! Images on his blog... (top is the 58mm btw) OMG I am getting this lens!

Msmoto

Well, I may be missing something, but I am not impressed with this lens. I just cannot see the evidence that this is much better than my old 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor.

However, I would suggest that this is only my first impression. And, I think I need to do some testing with my 50mm and see if I can find its flaws. Then I can post some full size images for comparison.

SquamishPhoto

If this lens is supposed to have the same 3D rendering quality that is generally the realm of Zeiss we are definitely not seeing it from these sample photos. If these help influence you to purchase this lens you may want to reevaluate your decision making processes. It might be wise to wait and see what a portrait photographer can do with the lens first

donaldejose

Hard to tell and need to wait for more testing and examples but my first impression is that better portrait lens are Nikon's 85mm f1.8 G at less than one third the price or the 85mm f1.4 for about the same price. My guess is this 58mm f1.4 may be best suited for city lights at night when you don't want them "smeared." Recently I have found the Nikon 70-200 f4 at about 135mm works very well for portraits because it allows you to keep more distance from the subject when taking headshots. I don't see this 58mm f1.4 in my future.