Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

Golf007sd

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.

That perspective can be applied to any gear in our bags, as well as, any new tech that is introduced today. Cell phone technology is a perfect example...but I digress.

Personally, I though I took good pictures till I got my D7000 in 2010 and got educated about photography. I can honestly say that my perspective on image quality was miss guided. So by all means, lets not deviate from the results this new generation of a lens is producing, by turning it into a "good sales pitch" argument.

Ade

I can pull out my old dusty D200 from storage and take great pictures. I had my whole professional portfolio done on that D200. Please don't tell me anyone needs a D700 to take great pictures.

Golf007sd

Then why did you not keep using it Ade? Why purchase any new tech? Sell all your modern gear and go back and take images in film for that matter. After all, many fantastic and powerful images have been taken with film. Why even own anything digital? Was it all "marketing?"

spsfoto

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.

I feel more that people interested in the 58mm are just interested in it for its different look, rather than anyone saying "I must have this"

Canons 1.2 L gets the same response. It's mtf chart is hardly impressive but to me it's still a great lens that gives a different result. Voigtlander 58 1.4 is pretty bad too but I still like its "character" and different look.

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

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.

well, to be clear, what i meant is that they posted side-by-side comparison photos,. and that to me, there seemed to be no discernible differences

how do i put this?! if zooming in is necessary to decide if the photo is good or not, then the answer is no, its not a good photo. if the photo is good, you would notice the corners, or the blur, or some fringing, or any of that stuff, because you would be too busy looking at the picture to worry about it. i have taken thousands of pics with my 50 and am always happy with the results. perhaps it is just subjective but i dont find the pictures to be ugly or flat, but just good pictures, so long as the subject was interesting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63040056@N03/7621531464/ (dont know how to insert images anymore)

if i were to zoom in on the tree, then perhaps i might find some fringing, or maybe the blur or the contrast could be slightly better, but who cares? i have never zoomed in on that tree to check because i like the picture. any camera would take a nice picture in this situation, and i could certainly take a lot of bad pictures with the new 58mm if i went to boring places and took pictures of boring things

i am sure the new 58 is better than the 50s in some ways, but those ways in which it is better are not on my priority list. i am open to having my mind changed though, and look forward to seeing more images from it in the future !

Ade

Sure a ranked tennis player is going to kick your ass using only a $10 tennis racquet from Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean an equally ranked player isn't going to kick HIS ass if he pulls out that piece of crap.

Photography isn't tennis. Many lenses from decades ago, including the 50mm/1.2, are still capable of taking the finest quality pictures today.

Msmoto

As to lenses from the past, sharpness, etc. click on the larger image and it appears sharp enough to me.



Nikkor - H 85mm f/1.8 from 1966

Larger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8706075576/sizes/o/in/set-72157630044833773/

I think some of the newer lenses may be slightly better, but, can we actually see the difference in final products?

WestEndBoy

@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.

Since almost the *day* that I got my D800 I have been complaining about the lack of a truly professional grade ~50mm prime. I just couldn't believe that something really good didn't exist. I"ve shot with everything in the ~50 range and never liked the results. The Sigma 50/1.4 V1 that I have just sits in my bag and only comes out when I absolutely have no other choice. I get filled with dread every time I have to pull it out.

Ade has a point, lots of stunning photos have been taken with mediocre lens and I have taken great photos with my two 50s which I am about to rant about. So to Pitchblack's point, my 50mm 1.4G is mediocre, bettered in many respects by my 50mm 1.2 MF which has been in production since 1981, though even that is mediocre optically (though build is awesome). It burns me that I have spent all this money on a D800, 14-24 2.8, 85 1.4G and a 135 DC 2.0, only to be forced to take 75% of my shots with those two pieces of crap because that is the focal length I love. I am always contriving a way to use the 85, but I often can't get the focal length to work.

OK, not crap, but mediocre.

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.

well, to be clear, what i meant is that they posted side-by-side comparison photos,. and that to me, there seemed to be no discernible differences

how do i put this?! if zooming in is necessary to decide if the photo is good or not, then the answer is no, its not a good photo. if the photo is good, you would notice the corners, or the blur, or some fringing, or any of that stuff, because you would be too busy looking at the picture to worry about it. i have taken thousands of pics with my 50 and am always happy with the results. perhaps it is just subjective but i dont find the pictures to be ugly or flat, but just good pictures, so long as the subject was interesting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63040056@N03/7621531464/ (dont know how to insert images anymore)

if i were to zoom in on the tree, then perhaps i might find some fringing, or maybe the blur or the contrast could be slightly better, but who cares? i have never zoomed in on that tree to check because i like the picture. any camera would take a nice picture in this situation, and i could certainly take a lot of bad pictures with the new 58mm if i went to boring places and took pictures of boring things

i am sure the new 58 is better than the 50s in some ways, but those ways in which it is better are not on my priority list. i am open to having my mind changed though, and look forward to seeing more images from it in the future !

I almost cried when I saw that picture. There is a tulip farm in Toyama (Japan Sea side of Honshu) that looked just like that. I used to drink sake under a cherry blossom tree that looked over it. So well done, kudos to you.

Looking at your photography, I see where you are coming from. I take lots of pictures just like those with my 50s. Looking at Pitchblack's photography, I see where he is coming from. He (and his clients) are counting eyelashes.

But this 58, its a "look" that evoked an emotional reaction in me and my technically unsophisticated wife (but she gets it, or else I would be shooting DX). And that was in a camera store with a display wall in the background.

And I am counting eyelashes sometimes too. That is why Pitchblack and I both have our 85s.

Elvishefer

Photography evolves.

Expectations evolve.

Tech evolves to support both.

The timeless aspects of photography will never change, but what we can accomplish with the gear we use does.

Newer gear should create opportunities. But the best camera/gear will always be what you have with you.

WestEndBoy

@jshickele: I absolutely agree that great photos can be taken with lesser equipment. It's much like the tennis player who can hit an amazing shot with a crap racquet. It can and does happen. But it doesn't logically follow that the better equipment is unnecessary.

100%

donaldejose

As to sharpness, msmoto's photo (and the current 85mm f1.8 and f1.4) suggest to me that Nikon may be very good at making 85mm lenses:better than they are at making 50mm lenses.

As to some sort of subjective "magical" quality, if you see it (or think you do) and it is worth the money to you go ahead and purchase the lens. If you don't see it (or cannot because your eyesight or taste is somehow subjectively defective) don't buy the lens. Being a subjective thing, it will be hard to prove scientifically. Also, we must remember when we are looking at images on our monitors we are looking a images no larger than 2 megapixels because nothing larger can be displayed on the monitor. A lot of "magic" can be lost when taking an image with a 2 mp sensor as opposed to taking it with a 36mp sensor. Also, even if some "magic" is evident to you when looking at two photos one after the other full screen on your monitor that "magic" may not be able to be transmitted over the internet to be obvious to those of us here looking at your two photos posted in this thread or posted on PAD. What does PAD or this thread display? 640 x 423 = 270,720 pixels; about one fourth of one megapixel. I doubt the difference between two shots of the same subject taken on the same D800 in the same light with the same settings but one with a 50mm f14 or f1.8 at f2 and the other with the 58mm f1.4 at f2 will be detectable to viewers. Point being, even if the "magic" really is there you are not likely to be able to prove it with images posted to those of us on NR who are interested in the subject. That said, I remain interested in the subject and certainly willing to look at any such photos posted by anyone.

WestEndBoy

This looks pretty magical to me on my 2 megapixel monitor. Most of Leica's allure comes from photos where the magic is obvious on 2 megapixel 3 by 5 prints. My experience with the 58mm was on the back of a DF's LCD screen.

So I disagree, the magic does not seem to depend on megapixels and seems to cross mediums very well.

donaldejose

I don't see the magic. I see an underexposed face, nice bokeh and good sparation of the subject from the background. I must be subjectively deficient!

WestEndBoy

Yes, there are certainly technical shortcomings.

donaldejose

Yes, I knew the backstory when I made my comments and I knew the exposure could be fixed. I saw what I said and wouldn't label it "magic" (excellent is ok) but I cannot attest to how the 50mm f1.4 would perform under the same circumstances and will take your word for it. The colors are nice. Colors can be changed in post processing also which is a comment I made before to which you responded something like "yes but I prefer to get the best colors to start with so I have less to do in post-processing." The lens may be worth it to you and many others. At this point it isn't worth it to me but then again, as I said, my eyesight and taste may be deficient.

donaldejose

Let's all hope the Siggy 50 f1.4 II follows in the footprints of Sigma's recent Art series lenses. That will make the 58mm f1.4 price fall on the used market.

Elvishefer

So Digital Rev says the lens is a classic, and for bokeh geeks totally worth it.

I want to be a bokeh geek but I think I'll wait for the price to settle a bit...

donaldejose

I agree. Let's have super bokeh and sharpness. I noticed Nikon first advertized this lens with sample photos taken at f2.0. Why "show off" a f1.4 lens at f2.0 if there isn't a real weakness at f1.4?

Golf007sd

@Elvishefer: That is not a bad course of action. Lets see what happened in the secondary market once the new Art Sigma 50 1.4 hit the market.

Having said that, to see Kia or anyone that has shot the Canon 50 1.2, say that the Nikon 58 1.4G is the best in the D-SLR world is quite promising. Yet, Ziess has clammed their 55 1.4 Otus to be the Best. Personally, I have shot with the Canon 50 1.2 and I feel in love with it from the minute I pressed down on the shutter and saw the result. Nikon sure gets a big thumbs up from me, if this trend continues to does hold true. Hence, if Sigma Art fails to deliver, this will be in my bag.

NSXTypeR

@Elvishefer: That is not a bad course of action. Lets see what happened in the secondary market once the new Art Sigma 1.4 hit the market.

Having said that, to see Kia or anyone that has shot the Canon 50 1.2, say that the Nikon 58 1.4G is the best in the D-SLR world is quite promising. Yet, Ziess has clammed their 55 1.4 Otus to be the Best. Personally, I have shot with the Canon 50 1.2 and I feel in love with it from the minute I pressed down on the shutter and saw the result. Nikon sure gets a big thumbs up from me, if this trend continues to does hold true. Hence, if Sigma Art fails to deliver, this will be in my bag.

How about the Canon 85mm 1.2? Have you shot with that too?

Golf007sd

@NSXTypeR: No I have not.

TaoTeJared

I have played with a friend's 5d mkII and both (85 & 50) 1.2s. Almost made me want to switch for the bokeh and the feel/rendering of those two. They are both very slow focusing, miss focus a lot, and are not "super" sharp wide open until f2.8. For some reason people here actually believe lenses are/should be their sharpest wide open. 2-stops down. Every lens is almost to it's max sharpness two stops down. Most shoot those lenses at F2. And the bokeh is still great - better than the 1.4s.

That tid-bit, and knowing that scoring lens tests are utterly ridiculous, is the thing that distinguishes most commenting on this thread - those who understand how and work to create an image and come home with it, and those who are still wondering if they got an image when they load the card. I'm not trying to be offensive, but that truly is the case here - experience.

If you don't understand that sharpness (especially wide open) doesn't mean snot, or see the difference between the 58, 50 f1.4g, 1.8g, Otus, and even from a Zeiss or Leica m-mount 50's- hell even a Panasonic m4/3rds 25mm 1.4 or Voigtlander 50s, then you really need to stop reading online reviews, stop commenting, and decide if you are fine making snapshots or want to understand, and want to create images. If you want to create images, then you have to ask yourself, in what style, and then with what lens. Lenses have signatures, personalities, and a feel that are each their own. Sometimes that comes from straight high contrast, or very low contrast. Flat field, verses circular-symmetrical and mustache distortion. (Can you name which design Zeiss puts into some of it's lenses to get the 3D pop?) Onion blossoms, cat's eyes, jittery, Hollywood, cream cheese, and so on. I swear if I see another comment or thread about sharpness I'm going to stab my eyes out with a pencil. All lenses are sharp.

All the 50s for Nikon currently produce a really "flat" or generic sterile looking images. Nikon with it flange distance, is really limited in lens choices. You can't use older lenses, Leica M, Pentax, M42s, and many others without an adapter with a piece of added glass that either degrades the image or "slows" the exposure down. That is where the 58mm comes into play. It is the closest lens in the 50mm range that reaches for "character" that is for Nikon.

For those who don't understand what I wrote above, here are some image searches to glance over and see if you can "see" how it is different.
1) Nikon 50mm 1.8g
2) Nikon 50mm 1.4g
3) Nikon 58mm 1.4g
4) Leica 50mm Summilux
5) leica 50mm Summicron apo

TaoTeJared

The 58mm lens is made for those who want a 50mm lens with character. Not everyone wants or needs that and that is fine. That is why there is the cheap or cheaper 50s.

What I just don't get, is that there are people here bashing this lens who don't even own a FX or barely $1,800 of gear, who have much more expensive lenses, and those who gripe about price every thread that is opened about a new lens or body. Out of the 12 pages of this thread there is probably 8 that is just that. Why waste your time?

I know there are some on here that are good shooters, and it sounds like 50mm isn't their thing - And that is fine. That is why I have been waiting for a cheaper 35mm - that's not the focal length I like too shoot all the time with.

Elvishefer

I guess people are griping about price because the lauch pricing for the Df and the 58mm runs into a serious value for money contradiction.

The 58mm isn't worth what's being asked for it. Thom Hogan has a good take on it here..

What bothers me personally is the attitude behind the pricing, and has nothing to do with the gear's technical attributes - I really like my Nikon gear. I just don't approve of the 'launch too high and then rebate a few short months later' strategy Nikon is employing. It doesn't make sense to me in today's consumer-aware marketplace. For me, it's a sign of bad thinking at the helm of a company I'm heavily invested in.