Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

Golf007sd

@TTJ, Adamz & PitchBlack: I totally agree with each of you. Shooting wide open, specially with a 1.4 is a challenging task, when your subject is at a close distance. As we all know, the DOF is so dam shallow, that 1 out of 8 shots of mine are acceptable to me. In fact, Jared's comment in his video confirm my position.

Just because you have any fast prime lens (in the range of 1.2, 1.4 or 1,8) does NOT mean you have to shoot at that aperture. Use the lens and the optics it offers in a fashion that shines on your subject, thus producing an image that rewards its usage.

shawnino

@golf007sd you are of course correct, one does not have to shoot these things faster than f/2. Agreed, certain shots might call for much deeper DOF and it's up to the tog to figure out which. But all in all, I don't care: Maybe I'm too much in love with money, but in my opinion if I'm going to part with $1500-$2000 for what is effectively a normal prime, if I'm not happy with the lens wide open then I've ripped myself off.

1 shot in 8 acceptable wide open? I don't have that much skill. I'm 1-in-20 handheld on a good day with my beloved 135mm f/2. But I'm 100% sure that the 95% of my images which are unacceptable are down to me, and not to the tools.

Golf007sd

@shawnino: The reason I have such "acceptable" shots to me is: the AF on the 1.4's I use. Without this feature, I'm sure my ration would be in line with yours. The AF on this lens is a key factor for me, that is why I have put this lens in front of the Ziess Otus 55 1.4. The price is also a factor...even though some will disagree on both price points.

Beso

@PitchBlack said "You buy a good lens because it's a good lens. Don't feel compelled to shoot it wide open.

By the same token if the lens is as good and fast as advertised one should not be afraid to shoot it wide open. It is the photographer's skills that maximize the value of the gear.

Beso

@PitchBlack - Fast glass wide open has a place in photography just like every focal length and aperture of each lens has a place. All I'm saying is just because it is challenging to shoot wide open doesn't mean one shouldn't. By the same token just because something can be done doesn't mean it necessarily should. Don't be so defensive ... there is a time and place for everything.

SquamishPhoto

I remember a few years ago having a wtf moment when I saw some of Annie Leibovitz's EXIF data from a shoot and she was using an expensive prime shooting at f13. I know that Steven Meisel also shoots way the hell closed down. I still have a bias for shooting relatively open, but I'm much more willing to not make my mind up beforehand and let the circumstances guide me.

+1
There was a great piece on Mitch Meyer on the Framed Network when it first started that showed his workflow and camera setup and he spent most of his time shooting at f8-f22, especially for high end fashion headshots with super expensive make up art done on the model that really deserves as much of the spot light as anything. Check his stuff here: http://www.mitchmeyerphotography.com/book2

Elvishefer

I've always believed that photographers don't buy f/1.4 lenses so they can shoot at f/1.4 all the time, they buy them for the times they NEED to.

That said, I do find myself trying to nail shots at f/1.4 more often than I probably should, I enjoy it.

As for the small apertures for the expensive shoots - I thought it was so the retouchers would have more to work with?

shawnino

I'm struggling to properly express myself.

I'm certain the new 58mm 1.4 has to be a very good lens at f/8, and is very likely a great lens at f/8. It may even be markedly superior at f/8 to all extant 50-60mm for all I know.

The ATTRACTION for me, though, is at faster than f/2. I have a 50 1.4D, and for my purposes, it's fine. Those billboards you see on the drive to work each morning? I didn't shoot those. Not a single one. I use my 50 for as-candid-as-I-can street work.

If I'm buying this lens (I sure hope to) it'll be for its characteristics wide open/near-wide-open. And while I hope this lens will be an awesome all-rounder, I'm hoping it's geared for peak performance not at f/8, f/2.8, or even f/1.8. I'm really hoping that when the lens engineers set this lens up, they wanted to do everything they could to maximize f/1.4, with everything else a cherry on top.

From what I see of the manual 50 f/1.2, it's geared to give you a "look" with extremely shallow DOF. Slower than f/2, it's very plain or perhaps even inferior to other 50s. I'm hoping the 58mm f/1.4 is at its best wide open.

Photobug

Over the years I probably owned 5 50mm F/1.4 Some were better than others. I agree with Elvishfer....
I've always believed that photographers don't buy f/1.4 lenses so they can shoot at f/1.4 all the time, they buy them for the times they NEED to.

If it's great at F/2.8 or F/2.0 terrific but if's it the best ever at F/1.4...wow. Can't wait to see how it test.

SquamishPhoto

If you want the best at f1.4, this lens isn't the design. Expect performance to be best at f2-2.8 The only reason to make a fuss over performance at f1.4 is bokeh, and if my ZF.2 100mm f2 is any guide, you don't need f1.4 for gorgeous bokeh. Just sayin' :]

If you want a perfect 50mm range performance across the frame AND great bokeh @ f1.4, you'll need to tack on an extra few grand and switch brands. Personally, I find 50mm focal length useful only for new born portraits and not much else. Ill take the rendering from the Sigma 35mm over any 50mm any day of the week.

TaoTeJared

If I'm buying this lens (I sure hope to) it'll be for its characteristics wide open/near-wide-open. And while I hope this lens will be an awesome all-rounder, I'm hoping it's geared for peak performance not at f/8, f/2.8, or even f/1.8. I'm really hoping that when the lens engineers set this lens up, they wanted to do everything they could to maximize f/1.4, with everything else a cherry on top.

Pure optimization can be done at wide open, but at a cost to quality starting at f/5.6. Zeiss has had "issues" with their ZM line and the complaints about wide open performance - which was a factory adjustment to make them sharp 1-1.5 stops down under 2m. Many rangefinder/street shooters have sent their lenses in to get re-adjusted/optimized for wide open shooting. The wider the lens, the more focus shift there is inside the 1/3 front-2/3rds behind at close focusing distances which are seen wide open. I deal with that often with my 50g and "screw up" (only photographers would notice) when I forget about it and am working close. Really all Sigma has done to make their lenses sharper wide open is to optimize at this rage. When stopped down the Nikon equivalents perform better longer in the aperture range. You can do it with any Nikon lens as well, but there is always the trade-off in earlier diffraction and a shift in focus beyond 2m (which that last fact is less noticeable due to the increased DOF.)

Just an observation, I notice that those defending spending more $ and believe it is find to usually be stopped down (I'll include myself in that), also use Lighting more. Stopping down is very different in the decision process
when shooting landscape vs portraits/studio where lighting is used.

Of course all of the 1.4 shooting depends on if you properly adjust your camera (micro adjust), the filter you use, shutter speed, shakes, wind blowing you, etc. Those are variables that can't be 100% eliminated. What I see is the added contrast, saturated colors, smoother bokeh, and a bit more micro contrast in the images that no other 50 (outside of zeiss) for Nikon can touch. Those are the variables that are there for 100% of every shot. That is what the lens adds to my eye and why It's price is justified.

On a side note, I looked at more Zeiss Otus sample images and it still trounces this Nikkor. That is an amazing tool - just way too much for me. I have a Df to buy too

shawnino

@TTJ: very informative. Thank you very much.

Agreed Zeiss Otus 55 looks staggeringly amazing. I wonder if I'll ever buy a lens in that line. 55 too physically big for me for street. 85 or 105 intriguing, but by all accounts (Squamish gives best voice on here) the existing 100 f/2 is already obscenely good and priced at half the Otus 55, so I'd likely get that before the newer model.

I hope they sell lots of the Otus 55 to studio togs who like the length and need the best. Cutting-edge development finds its way into consumer products, eventually.

TaoTeJared

Every lens has focus at close distances has shift to f4, beyond that you just don't see it. Any shift is constant and not haphazard though. My 50g back focuses under 1.5m and actually if I put the focus spot on the nose, it nails the shot. (I actually like it that way;) Makes composing a bit easier.

Actually, you can have lens firmware make adjustments at every aperture, which is where Sigma is headed, I think.

From what I have read, Sigma is there with that little desktop dealy-bop puck thing. The less informed could really jack the lens up though! (always fixable).

I would really like to see Nikon come out with a lens alignment kit that you can hook up to the camera from your computer and change settings based on lenses and camera settings. VR, focus, auto ISO, exposure comp. etc. I would love for the auto iso and VR to change automatically to the settings I choose with changing of lenses.

shawnino

I would really like to see Nikon come out with a lens alignment kit that you can hook up to the camera from your computer and change settings based on lenses and camera settings. VR, focus, auto ISO, exposure comp. etc. I would love for the auto iso and VR to change automatically to the settings I choose with changing of lenses.

+1. Sigma dock like $60. Would pay double that for something that handled Nikon lenses.

Photobug

When I bought the F/1.4s it was to shoot at F2.8 to F/8. I paid the extra money over the F/2 lens so when I needed the faster 1.4, I had it. Back then I also realized that it wasn't as sharp as the middle F stops but that is why I only used it when light was an issue. My hunch most advanced photographers did the same.

TaoTeJared

Bump

zernicke

I received my copy of this lens, and was disappointed how soft it was close up, takes +7 at very close focus
+5 at intermediate, and +3 at distance. This is all at f/1.4 but if it doesn't work well here, then I really don't care much about 2.8 or 4.0. I tried my other f/1.4 and the 85 is spot on, no adjustment, the 35 needs a little +3 very close but otherwise is on, and I rarely get that close. The manual says that one should usually not need to do microadjustments like this to focus. The lens is going back, return not an exchange.

heartyfisher

Don't remember if I mentioned this somewhere but I know a guy with the latest Canon FF and the 85 F1.2 and several of the other larger aperture lenses.. Well he liked the Nikkor 58 1.4 and he will be getting the 58 1.4 as soon as its available! So he bought a D800 and an 85 F1.8 to get familiar with Nikon in the mean time. :-)

TaoTeJared

I received my copy of this lens, and was disappointed how soft it was close up, takes +7 at very close focus
+5 at intermediate, and +3 at distance. This is all at f/1.4 but if it doesn't work well here, then I really don't care much about 2.8 or 4.0. I tried my other f/1.4 and the 85 is spot on, no adjustment, the 35 needs a little +3 very close but otherwise is on, and I rarely get that close. The manual says that one should usually not need to do microadjustments like this to focus. The lens is going back, return not an exchange.

???? That is like zero adjustment at all. I have multiple lenses at the +/-15-20 mark.

Close focus also exhibits focus shift, that is there with every single lens as well. Also realize that under 1m, your DOF has to be under 1". Razor thin.

How is it otherwise?

heartyfisher

I saw an interesting comment re this lense... " if you are wondering why you should buy it then it simply is not for you…"

shawnino

Roger Cicala's tests:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/nikon-58mm-f1-4-is-hopefully-not-about-the-numbers

Not exactly what I wanted to read given my predisposition for lens lust re: this piece of glass, but he leaves the door open to have us all wowed in the field.

birdman

Looks like an intriguing lens. I see they are not going to update the 35/1.4 to nicer optics, as most people still seem to still note with the sigma 35mm (which I proudly own, BTW). However, this is quite a different demographic. Where it might NOT excel at absolute pin-point sharpness wide-open, the CA and other "abberations" in fast glass don't affect this particular optic from Nikon as much. The ancient 58mm MF was stellar in it's day (and still impressive). Plus, the FL is closer to the highly versatile 60mm/2.8 macro, without the ability to shoot 1:1 but with other advantages. We better enjoy what Nikon does develop since it seems they have remade almost every lens in their lineup :-) Next we'll have the 300mm/4.0 VRIII and perhaps a 135/2.0VR... Still - this piece would be a rental for me. My Siggy 35/1.4, 50/1.8G and 85/1.8G will suffice perfectly well in the meantime.

donaldejose

PitchBlack: I for one, care about your opinions. Please report back.

shawnino

Main blog shows a weaker rating from DxOMark than the stable of Nikkor 50s and one of the Zeiss; a couple early negative comments too:

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/12/nikon-58mm-f1-4g-lens-tested-at-dxomark.aspx/#comments

Giddy up. Hopefully a few prominent souls will take a dump all over this lens so that, come the first day of rebate season, I'm looking at $1400 instead of $1700. All together now: "This lens sucks! This lens sucks! This lens sucks!"

Msmoto

I do not understand this as well….