Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

Ade

@paperman

Yes the manual count was before dpreview inked a deal with DxO to provide modern lens test analysis. Here's an article which describes the deal, and as a bonus also has a nice picture of the DxO slanted-edge test chart:

http://www.dxomark.com/Publications/News/DxOMark-news/DPReview-and-DxOMark-to-partner-for-lens-testing

@Symphotic

I'd hope so. The original Noct design is almost 40 years old, and it was the first time Nikon used an aspherical element in a true SLR lens (which didn't require the mirror to be locked up). We've learned a lot more about lens design & manufacturing since then.

WestEndBoy

I read the article and pretty much agree given my experience with the lens. I am going to borrow it again and do a full photo shoot with it before I decide to buy it. Like I said, I love the "look" of the photos.

Any results back from your photoshoot Pitchblack yet? I am eager to hear what you think of the 58mm with a more rigorous test.

WestEndBoy

Then I am sure that this thread will light up in February.

FreezeAction

I hope so. Real high beams. Factual real world information is always a help.

Golf007sd

A very healthy review of the Nikon 58 .14 by our friends over at Photographylife.

An in-depth review of Nikon's 58 1.4G

...58mm f/1.4G, it is not made to be a general-purpose lens...one has to look at other important factors such as craftsmanship, colors, depth and other often non-quantifiable features... strong field curvature, Nano + Super Integrated Coating, distortion, moderate vignetting and optimized optical design collectively contribute to rendering of images with perceived depth, beautiful colors and superb bokeh....The 58mm f/1.4G is now one of my favorite portrait lenses...Overall, I am very impressed by what the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G can deliver....Taking into account everything I have said above, it is surely the finest Nikkor lens in the standard range that is capable of producing beautiful images that stand out with a distinct, three dimensional look and feel. I am glad that Nikon chose a different path for optical design this time around and concentrated more on aesthetics, rather than on pure optical performance.

TaoTeJared

...58mm f/1.4G, it is not made to be a general-purpose lens...one has to look at other important factors such as craftsmanship, colors, depth and other often non-quantifiable features... strong field curvature, Nano + Super Integrated Coating, distortion, moderate vignetting and optimized optical design collectively contribute to rendering of images with perceived depth, beautiful colors and superb bokeh....The 58mm f/1.4G is now one of my favorite portrait lenses...Overall, I am very impressed by what the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G can deliver....Taking into account everything I have said above, it is surely the finest Nikkor lens in the standard range that is capable of producing beautiful images that stand out with a distinct, three dimensional look and feel. I am glad that Nikon chose a different path for optical design this time around and concentrated more on aesthetics, rather than on pure optical performance.

Everything that Nasim said is what I am looking for. Sorry but the Sigys don't have character in my eyes and seem to be flat-field macros at different focal lengths. If I wanted that, I would just shoot my 60 macro all the time.

adamz

I know it's OT but I love your shot PitchBlack! sorry, couldn't resist.

as for the chart. sure sigma looks like another league, but how about bokeh. N58/1.4 has one of the best bokeh from all Nikon lenses - IMHO, just two are better 200/2 and 50/1.2.

WestEndBoy

Pitchblack, I have to wonder about this 58mm lens and you.

Looking at your work, it is evident to me (I am stating the obvious here) that you have a true ARTISTIC talent for photography.

The 58mm lens is a potentially superb lens with some weaknesses, just like some of the Leicas.

It would seem to me that someone of your talent would be uniquely qualified to fulfill the potential of what this lens has to offer, working around its weaknesses, which is probably only field curvature. No doubt, it would certainly require a period where you would need to become comfortable with working around these weaknesses and produce superb results.

Would this be an all purpose lens? No. It would probably be in your bag to use sometimes when the opportunities presented themselves. But I think that you would be able to produce some incredible results in those situations.

Cheers,

Jeff

donaldejose

Sometimes two people with differing opinions can both be right; they are just placeing different values on different parts of the same thing. As to the 58mm f1.4 is seems quite clear those who place a very high value on tack sharp images at f1.4 will find the lens disappointing even though is has great bokeh. In contrast those who place a higher value on bokeh at f1.4 will find the lens fantastic. Both can be right. It seems equally clear the new 50mm f1.4 Art Sigma will be much sharper at f1.4 than the 58mm Nikon. But what about the bokeh? We don't know yet. Looking forward to some examples.

Ironheart

Not to speak for Pitch or anything, but artists all prefer different tools. I've seen folks carve animals out of a solid stump with a chainsaw, whilest others will use the smallest chisel imaginable, and everything in between. Some photographers swear by that old, ratty looking 300mm lens as the best portrait lens ever, while others will only use a pristine 28mm Zeiss for portraits. I recall @MikeGunter saying, "different boats for different folks, we all reach the same shore".

While I'm typing this Donald has snuck in ahead of me with the same sentiment :-)

WestEndBoy

And valid sentiments they are. I would not presume to speak for Pitchblack. I am just saying,"Have you approached this problem fron this direction.". Maybe the 58 AND the Sigma are the answer? I don't know.

TaoTeJared

I love that shot as well PitchBlack!

I must say that is probably the only shot I have seen with a Siggy and I can see some post work in it as well (as one should do and it is done wonderfully.) There are still the Signature Siggy artifacts in the bokeh that drives me batty. "@MikeGunter saying, "different boats for different folks, we all reach the same shore". "

WestEndBoy

I havn't seen a Pitchblack shot I don't like.

Ade

+1 PitchBlack.

What puzzles me is that many sample 58/1.4 pictures look a bit soft throughout the frame. This lens should still be quite sharp at and near the focus point. I don't know if its an PDAF calibration issue (maybe one must take account of the wavy field curvature) -- or the lens really is a bit soft throughout.

I'm maybe different from most here that I don't want my lenses to have too much "character". Wavy field curvature is a "flaw", a compromise. It is not generally desirable and is not what makes pictures have a "3D look". It is ok in small amounts in exchange for other characteristics (i.e., better coma handling).

donaldejose

When I looked closely at some of the early example photos Nikon published I noticed they were shot a f2 rather than at f1.4. Now why would Nikon do that? Push photos of a f1.4 lens taken at f2? Because Nikon knew it was soft at f1.4 and didn't want to that wide open softness to be the first impression people had of the lens. Nikon wanted us to focus on the bokeh, not the sharpness (or lack thereof). Nikon knew what PitchBlack discovered. He is right; but so are people to whom sharpness at f1.4 isn't so important. Let's hope the Sigma 50mm f1.4 offers both great sharpness and great bokeh at half the price of Nikon's 58mm.

WestEndBoy

@jshickele. Thanks for the very nice words. The basic problem I have with the 58/1.4 and sharpness is that I get such fantastic results with the 85/1.4g in terms of both sharpness *and* bokeh, and my limited experience with this lens has shown me that I can't really shouldn't use it below f2.0, and the kicker is that it costs more than the 85/1.4.

Lots of people here are creating a false dichotomy, essentially arguing that sharpness and other desirable characteristics are always exclusive. The 85/1.4g clearly shows that this is not the case and I guess I was hoping for the same lens, only slightly wider.

Depth of field will have to be deeper on the 58 because you are both wider and stopped down.
- At two meters away, the DOF on the 85/1.4g @ 1.4 is roughly 4.5 cm
- At two meters away, the DOF on the 58/1.4g @ 2.0 is roughly 14 cm
– If the 58 would be sharp at 1.4, the DOF drops to less than 10. I think that's where I want to be.

Granted, I do a lot of studio shots at f8, and the 58/1.4g is great for that when I want that look, but I'm not going to pay $1800 to shoot there.

Of course these are all my initial impressions and I'm still waiting to do a full shoot and really put the lens through its paces before I make a final decision.

I hear you on your false dichotomy point. I am curious to see if the 58 is superior to the 85 in other aspects. If not, then I would feel taken advantage of too and it opens the door to a competitor (I wonder if Sigma will ever learn bokeh?). However, if colour and bokeh are somehow superior to the 85, then I can see the logic behind the tradeoff that Nikon made.

Part of me just wished that they made it a $3,000 lens and really sharp everywhere while not sacrificing the lens' other benefits. I would pay for that after saving a little longer. I am really yearning for a professional grade lens at 50ish mm that is not only good in the areas the are easy to measure in a lab. A super sharp but flat Sigma is not going to entice me.

Even if it is an 85 1.4G that is soft wider than 2.0, I may end up buying it.

WestEndBoy

I had the same experience when I threw it on a DF and snapped a picture of my wife. She is not even at your friends level but recognized how good it looked.

WestEndBoy

I find this comment interesting:

By now it should be clear to you where this is going. I do recommend the Nikon 58 1.4 as the go to lens for the 50mm range of lenses available to you. However, at nearly $1700 I cannot justify the price. I have no clue why it costs Nikon so much to make this lens. As someone that makes their living from photography full time I see price as a very different thing (less concerned with it) than most photographers and my only guess is that Nikon knows that. It’s priced to be ultra pro. If you’re a semi-pro on a budget, or avid amateur I’d absolutely recommend the Sigma 50 1.4 over this lens purely on a matter of cost. But if you’ve got the cash or the position to pick up the 58 1.4… absolutely do it.

I suppose that we won't know if it is overpriced until Sigma replicates it for cheaper like they seem to have on the 35mm 1.4. I suppose the question to ask is "could they"?

mikep

the dp review sums it up nicely for me. there are minor differences between the 58 and the 50 1.4g, at certain apertures IF you pixel peep

and i dont pixel peep

donaldejose

Maybe the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens will replicate it for about half the price.

WestEndBoy

the dp review sums it up nicely for me. there are minor differences between the 58 and the 50 1.4g, at certain apertures IF you pixel peep

and i dont pixel peep

Do you mean this one Mikep?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g/6

I don't think it says that. Quite the opposite it seems.

Golf007sd

From the images I have seen captured by the 58 1.4G (on FX bodies), when compared to the 50 1.4G, a lens that I own and I'm full aware of what it can produce, cannot be compared to one another. The 3D look, color rendition and bokeh of the 58 1.4G is far superior to it's little brother.

I hope to get my hand on this lens in one fashion or another and mount it on my D4.

donaldejose

The subjective "look" of a lens can be, shall I say it?, subjective. Some people may see much more "beauty" there than others.

PB_PM

Those who spend that kind of money for 8 extra mm need to make up some kind of justification for their expense (besides the fact that they can). The subjective "look" is the justification. I'm not saying that's not a bad thing or a good thing. I don't see anything special about any of the samples I've seen.

Then again I didn't see anything special about the 85mm F1.4D, until I shot with one. Was it so special that I bought one? No. Does having a lens like that give you a small edge under some conditions? Yes.

Ade

Let's step back for perspective.

The 58mm didn't even exist 3 months ago. And people have been taking absolutely stunning images using various 50mm lenses for decades.

Suddenly now we feel we "must have" the 58mm in order to take good pictures.

That's the power of marketing, not photography.