Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

Emcee

Yeah I'm not really impressed with David's samples, and the football shaped highlights aren't helping its cause.

donaldejose

I agree with PitchBlacks Bokeh comments as to the 58mm v the 50mm, but won't most portraits be taken with at least an 85mm? I don't see this a the best portrait lens from Nikon. As to color, that can be manipulated so much the lens is a minor part.

donaldejose

Yes, full body shots are 35mm and 50mm territory. I would think the Sigma 35mm f1.4 (which I don't have) would be good for full body shots. I generally use 35mm for full body. I am not seeing the utility of 58mm for portraits or full body shots. As to colors I wasn't thinking of changing them with Photoshop but rather tweaking them with Nikon's Picture Controls settings, even Nikon's Auto white balance setting can be adjusted for warmer colors.

Symphotic

Seems like a fine lens, but I'll wait.

Ade

I agree with PitchBlacks Bokeh comments as to the 58mm v the 50mm, but won't most portraits be taken with at least an 85mm?

Portraits, yes, @donaldjose... full body shots, no.

Damn, I must have missed the memo!! I did a ton of full body shots with the 85mm/1.4 and longer lenses. My bad!!!


GAP Summer Fashion, 2013. Model: Julia Mei, MUA: Lily

Now back to your regularly scheduled program…

adamz

oh c'm Tommie, the bokeh on the 58mm/1.5 is soooo creamy... I could almost eat it not sure if it's worth the cash (certainly it isn't ) but I wouldn't mind to have it in my bag (though, would prefer the new otus from zeiss )

Ade

@PitchBlack

With mid-tele lenses the distances are still reasonable (for me), and I'm constantly communicating with my models. You're absolutely right that you need a larger studio for this type of shot. And having good assistants always help because your position will also be further away from the lights.

I'm not a swimsuit specialist but I know a few of them who use the 70-200mm almost exclusively both indoors and outdoors for virtually any type of shot (full-length, close-ups, etc.)

Ironically I almost never use the 50mm for full-length studio shots. But recently I saw a fashion photographer doing some very nice, natural looking work with normal lenses so I will give it a try if I end up getting this 58mm.

shawnino

I'm buying this in February, rebate or no rebate.

Not that I wish Nikon ill, but I REALLY hope they have to give BIG rebates to move glass this winter. This bad boy is the only one I really want, but if the 200mm f/2 came in under $5K, I'm going to sell a liver.

Kidney! I keep getting those confused...

donaldejose

For those interested in mm and portraits considerations.

TaoTeJared

I don't know, the differences are quite stark to my eye. The out of focus regions are rendered MUCH more beautifully with the 58. It's creamy and delicious. The out of focus regions on the 50, on the other hand, are choppy and yuck.

Secondly, the tones are MUCH prettier with the 58—MUCH prettier.
- Check out the greens of the game board and the reds of the monkey's shirt.
- the blues and reds of the christmas light.
- the reds on the sidewalk under the neon sign.
- the warmth in the colors of the branches and the contrast with the background

Huge, huge differences.

100% with this - my feelings exactly.

Not much onion blossoms in the highlights as well. (Hard color rings in bokeh-ed lights.)

I like 50s to be able to get backgrounds in the shot. (I'm generally doing 3/4-1/2 body shots.) I generally don't like to go wider than a 50 due to distorting features come in. Compressed backgrounds I use the 70-200 at 100-200 at 2.8-4.

WestEndBoy

It seems odd that we are comparing the 58mm 1.4 with the 50mm 1.8 - combined with the shorter focal length and higher f-ratio, I can't see how the 50 mm can compete. Why not the 50mm 1.4? Or the 85mm 1.4?

Personally, I tend to do full body with my 85 and head or head and shoulders with my 135.

Msmoto

True confession time...I went out and took several shots with my old 50mm f/1.4 wide open....horrid flare, not present at f/4. So I am off to do some after removing the front filter, checking to make certain there is no garbage on the front. I will return....

Rx4Photo

PitchBlack just touched on something that I'm starting to see as more important to me in my learning process. I think for a higher-end look, even for whole body photos, a longer focal length lens would render the results that I'd want for myself and my subjects. I own the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and although excellent for good bokeh on close-ups (watch for distortion) I'd still prefer a smoother bokeh for certain 3/4 or whole body shots depending on the background. I must say that I have needed and appreciated having the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens for it's bokeh rendering on headshots in tight quarters. But ultimately, for me at least doing full body shots, I'd prefer at least the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 or Nikon 70-200mm beyond 100mm.

Don't think I'll be buying this 58mm as I can't come up with a good enough reason to own it. I do think Nikon could stand to reduce it by at least $200.

shawnino

As noted previously I have an unhealthy obsession with my 135 f/2 DC, treating its alleged shortcomings as desirable features. I use that wherever I can, portraits included. When I can't, 85 f/1.4D. I find I only call on my 50 when I'm going "as light/inconspicuous as possible". Very eager to see how this 58 will shake up my bag.

WestEndBoy

Shawnino said:
As noted previously I have an unhealthy obsession with my 135 f/2 DC, treating its alleged shortcomings as desirable features. I use that wherever I can, portraits included. When I can't, 85 f/1.4D. I find I only call on my 50 when I'm going "as light/inconspicuous as possible".

You shoot just like I do.

And Pitchblack's comments about the 50mm 1.4G are the reason I wished the 58mm was the new 50.

Ade

I still have a few other lenses I'd like to buy ahead of this one… including the Nikon 24/1.4 and the Sigma 35/1.4, plus I need to update some of my older zooms (I just sent my AF-D 28-70/2.8 out for repairs, for the 2nd time in less than a year). And I need to budget for a new backup body to replace my aging D700.

So the 58mm goes to the bottom of the wait list. Also, Nikon might still introduce a new 50 f/1.2 noct in the next 2-3 years; I'm not in a rush to buy something now.

TaoTeJared

It seems odd that we are comparing the 58mm 1.4 with the 50mm 1.8 - combined with the shorter focal length and higher f-ratio, I can't see how the 50 mm can compete. Why not the 50mm 1.4? Or the 85mm 1.4?

At the top of the David's page... :-B
These are comparison shots from The new Nikon 58mm 1.4G and the Nikon 50mm 1.8G (sorry, I don't have a 50mm 1.4G to compare)

Don't worry, there will be tons of samples images coming out soon.
-----------------------------------


I'll go back to my statement before, but with an example so maybe people understand a bit better where it comes from... The comparison this lens to anything but a 50-60mm range just is not appropriate. Focal length matters! A 35mm or a 135mm lens are completely different looks from a 50mm. It doesn't matter if the 35 or 135 are sharper or if the 85 renders better/worse/same bokeh. It only matters how it compares to other 50s or even zooms at 50-60mm.

I appreciate what people like to shoot and I'm all for it. Shoot what you enjoy - your images will look better for it. Love 35mm - great, I'm there with you - I shoot my X100 every day. If you like 135, fantastic. If I'm running outdoors with my 70-200 I'm close to it most of the time. FlowtographyBerlin brought up a good point about DOF and filling the frame for a head shot - but for good reason no one shoots head shots with a 24mm lens from 2ft away to fill the frame.

Establishing a base line of sharpness is fine - but saying "My 105 is sharper so I'm not getting this lens" is just a false rational. You don't shoot a 105 the same as a 50, nor do they render the image the same.

By how many are posting false rationals, it kind of sounds like most are either trying to convenience themselves not to want this lens, or looking for reaffirmation that they shouldn't want it. :-?

Golf007sd

@Ade: Great line up. I have them both. If I had to do it again, I would go with the Sigma 35 1.4, then the 24 1.4 (a.k.a my "Black-hole lens, given the amount of light it sucks in 8-} )

As we have all very clearly pointed out, headshot, half-body shots, and full headshot can be taken with a variety of lenses. Thus, I fully agree with TTJ on two counts: 1) "Shoot what you enjoy - your images will look better for it." 2) We really should keep the focus on the 58mm 1.4 as it relates to other lens within the 50-60mm focal length and compared them to one-another.

@PitchBlack: +1 on the 50 1.8G & 50 1.4G comments. If and when I get this lens, I just might sell my 50 1.4G. But, I have a problem: I'm a lens nut like msmoto & TTJ...I cannot see myself parting with them. They are "My Prrrrecious." 8->

Msmoto

What is this "lens nut" stuff….I do not have a 14-24mm f/2.8, nor a 24-70mm f/2.8, nor a 17-35mm f/2.8. I just cannot be a lens nut….unless having three others which cover 24mm means something…?

Golf007sd

Here is the link to Jared's Flicker account where he has image of the 58 1.4 vs. 59 1.2 Noct

And here is the link to the RAW file for download.

shawnino

I'm not sure what was funnier: sniffing the lenses like they were glue sticks, or pointing out that, at f/8 on a tripod, a $1700 lens is rather sharp.

TaoTeJared

I'm not sure what was funnier: sniffing the lenses like they were glue sticks, or pointing out that, at f/8 on a tripod, a $1700 lens is rather sharp.

"People want these lenses to shoot at 2.8, 3.2..."
Yeah I don't think so - we want to shoot at f/1.4-2. But as he said, that is hard to do right.

It is an amazing lens!

Golf007sd

A video shot by using the D4 /w the 58 1.4G.

kyoshinikon

Regardless of what this lens is viewed at, I wish their last 85mm was this "sharp" wide open...

adamz

+1 TTJ - if I wanted to shoot at 2.8 I don't need to spend so much money on prime, I can get one of the zoom lenses in nikon lineup.