Side-by-side Comparison of: Zeiss Otus 55, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

24567

Comments

  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    @FlowtographyBerlin
    I can honestly say that I have enjoyed this lens.
    It focuses fast and is sharper than my 50 1.8g.
    What in the... You should return your 1.8G immediately. There are really worlds between the two.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited August 2014
    That's an interesting way to look at it. The thing is, though, in order to get the same DOF, you have to have the same framing of the subject, meaning with a 35mm you have to be a lot closer to the subject, implying you will distort the appearance. It's just a horrible choice for (other than for Platon look) portrait.
    Depending how you define "portrait": face shots might get some big noses :) Shots, showing what people do, having not much space available (train compartments, working places with machinery around) I just prefer the 35. Even for closeups, if people have something in their hands to look at. It's a different interpretation of portrait, but I made some good experiences with it.
    Plus, on the other hand, if you choose to stay at the same distance and get "more background" in, the bokeh will not be the same because the DOF will be higher. There is really no point in getting a 35mm over a 50mm just because the bokeh is "better" (which I doubt) – because your pictures will be entirely different. To make it extreme: Let's say your photographing architecture and now someone tells you about the NIkkor 200mm/4 Macro being ultra-sharp. Sharper than the 14-24/2.8 you have. Are you gonna get the 200 instead?
    I wasn't saying the bokeh remains the same - at first place, the bokeh of 35 and 50mm are incomparable. I tried to express, with a 35 you get more information of the room around a subject or a person. This can be interesting - or distracting- But if it gets interesting, there's no point in using a 50 becasue the whole composition and relation of fore- to background will be different.

    Now here I post some of those "Platon look" things, whatever old Platon has to do with 35mm ;)

    image

    image
    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    Actually, the 58/1.4g should be even smaller and even lighter, but they packed a bunch of plastic around it to make it look like a substantial lens. I can think of no logical reason why it's so big other than marketing.
    Which is BTW pretty much exactly what I wrote in the summary.

  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    edited August 2014
    @Pitchblack a Built in Lens hood?

    @FlowtographyBerlin I re-read the review and I have a question on page 3 You said the light changed during the lens tests on the tree and building scene. I just want to ask for clarification as to the sky it seems darker on the Nikons and lighter on the Sigma. Is this due to vignetting or just how each lens handled the exposure?

    Post edited by Vipmediastar_JZ on
  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    I just want to ask for clarification as to the sky it seems darker on the Nikons and lighter on the Sigma. Is this due to vignetting or just how each lens handled the exposure?
    Exactly. Maybe I should have "neutralized" all that, but hence my statement to look at the bokeh, and not be intimidated by vignetting and the like.

  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    To make it extreme: Let's say your photographing architecture and now someone tells you about the NIkkor 200mm/4 Macro being ultra-sharp. Sharper than the 14-24/2.8 you have. Are you gonna get the 200 instead?
    I wasn't saying the bokeh remains the same - at first place, the bokeh of 35 and 50mm are incomparable. I tried to express, with a 35 you get more information of the room around a subject or a person. This can be interesting - or distracting- But if it gets interesting, there's no point in using a 50 becasue the whole composition and relation of fore- to background will be different.

    Now here I post some of those "Platon look" things, whatever old Platon has to do with 35mm ;)
    @JJ_SO: I wasn't referring to you with that comparison, I was referring to @heartyfishers "choice" between a 50 and a 35.

    Platon has to do a lot with 35mm, or well 35mm equivalent, since he's on medium format. But his famous look is made of two components: 1. One light behind white umbrella diffusor above camera 2. Wide angle lens and moving close up to the subject to fill the frame as a portrait shot.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    so no Greek philosopher, then?

    Never heard or seen of Platon before but nice pictures and at least one with a Leica (not only MF, then :) )

    Thanks for that input @FlowtographyBerlin. However, I still think, 35mm are closer to my normal eyesight when it comes to short distance head-viewing. In other words, depending on situation, space available and being familiar with the model, I also use the 35mm Sigma to do portraits.
  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    @JJ_SO: Come on, you cannot possibly not have seen the famous Clinton or Putin portrait:

    image
    image
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    Shall we bet? :D Forgive me, I just don't know all those famous guys. Most of them don't know me, so I think I'm not doing any harm to them.
  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    edited August 2014
    Just a note - the Clinton photo was done with a 4x5 view camera from what I found. Advantages of being able to tilt and shift creates that one. I researched that photo like crazy a few years ago to try to replicate it but of course I couldn't with a dslr. That is one of the advantages of a view camera - it needed a lot more tilt that only bellows can handle. Whatever you think of his work, it is distinct, catching and that gains him access to people that few ever will. He is a real interesting person to listen to in interviews. Definitely worth a few minutes on watching on youtube.
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    I love bokeh and I know I'm a stickler on it, but that comes from editing and working with tens of thousands of images and learning what the limits are on different lenses. I'm not sure why discussing a particular lens's imperfections sends some into such a defensive position. Lens purchases like most things are a personal decision. There seems to be a lack of acceptance that you can't just slap lenses into one of two buckets of being sharp or un-sharp. Every lens are designed and built around different compromises and none have everything without giving up something. The Zeiss is probably the best at threading that compromise line optically, but it gives on AF and Price.

    I have seen, and I'm sure others has as well, that the Zeiss and Nikon 58 have less contrast and the Sigma has more. As we all know, contrast aids in defining "crisp" lines. It also adds to clipping out shadows and highlights. All I see out of the Sigma is more defined edges and highlight and shadow color cut off in the bokeh with every image. Personally that really grinds at me. If that doesn't bother someone else, that is fine - but that doesn't give anyone the right to attack that observation or pretend it doesn't exist. That is just childish.

    I have been using my 50mm samples and downloading posted examples of all the 50's to edit. Out of camera examples have great merit, but there is not a single image that I deliver that edited. When editing, I do see a much greater difference in the bokeh between all the 50's. Especially how some hold onto edges, onto color in highlights and shadows, and especially how they react in editing when sharpening or clarity is applied. The Zeiss and the Nikon 58 hold onto colors much longer than the rest. Zeiss and Sigma's is sharper. The 50mm 1.8g with some sharpening applied damn near eliminates Sigma's gain. Stop them all down to 2.8 (to get nose to ear in focus) with a bit of clarity and sharpness - the difference is minute at best. The Bokeh though reacts individually to editing between them all.

    With the beginning of every project, among all the considerations, one of the first things I determine is what the final output will be. That can remove all nit-picky observations or make them more valid on a whole slug of items. We all understand that shrinking an image will naturally make it slightly sharper and will also make transitions between light and dark quicker. With 24mp/36mp sensors, the output file straight out of the camera (@ 300dpi) is about the equivalent of 16"x24" to about 20"x30" (no cropping.) At that, you can be inches away and not see any pixelation. Every output that is smaller than that will loose minute details (like onion circles in bokeh and vanes in eyes) and edges become clearer. Sharpness on an eyelash on an 8x10? (Think a full view in most applications on a 22" monitor is about 8x10 sheet of paper. Can you see the different eyelashes with a group of 4 people in the image?) When all eyelashes combined only occupy a space of maybe an inch at most - it just doesn't matter that much. Compare that to having 25-33% of an image out of focus. When the bokeh becomes distracting, or where your eye goes quickly to, if not first, then it comes an issue. That is the reason to me, the Bokeh matters a great deal more and I'm persnickety about it.
    Post edited by Bokeh_Hunter on
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member

    I have seen, and I'm sure others has as well, that the Zeiss and Nikon 58 have less contrast and the Sigma has more. As we all know, contrast aids in defining "crisp" lines. It also adds to clipping out shadows and highlights. All I see out of the Sigma is more defined edges and highlight and shadow color cut off in the bokeh with every image. Personally that really grinds at me. If that doesn't bother someone else, that is fine - but that doesn't give anyone the right to attack that observation or pretend it doesn't exist. That is just childish.
    Just because someone disagreed with you on the importance of one over the other in no way means they've attacked that observation. Suggesting that its "just childish" makes absolutely no sense. Stop making this stuff so personal.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    As for the Clinton shot, 2 minutes of google searching led to this : http://guessthelighting.com/2010/10/12/platons-lighting-for-controversial-bill-clinton-portrait/

    "Camera: Hasselblad 553ELX with 30mm fisheye lens and Kodak Portra film. Shot at 1/60, f8, ISO 100."

    I think you might want to rent a PC-E lens one day. I think you might be misunderstanding what they actually do.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • BesoBeso Posts: 464Member
    @FlowtographyBerlin Nice Review and thank you for posting the link. Unfortunately your review along with so many others reinforces the point about how Nikon, who built their reputation in large part on their optics, has fallen behind the competition to the degree where it should be an embarrassment. I own plenty of high dollar Nikon glass but their production of cameras (D800/D800E/D810) capable of exposing shortcomings in Nikon glass has me looking and buying selectively elsewhere. I continue to believe that the competition should stimulate renewed effort from Nikon but only time will tell. Nice job.
    Occasionally a decent image ...
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited August 2014
    ...reinforces the point about how Nikon...in large part...has fallen behind the competition to the degree where it should be an embarrassment....
    With all do respect Beso, I find that to be quite a stretch. We are talking a single focal length here: a 50mm prime. Some don't like the current top end Nikon 50mm (a.k.a 58 1.4G)...fine, no problem, I can live with that. I myself find that to be true as well, hence why I own the Sigma 50 Art (as well as their 35 Art). But, that is only 2 non-Nikon lens out of 12 that I own. For me, nothing out their can replace the other 9 (RIP 50 1.4G). If the Zeiss offered the Octus with AF, I can assure you, it would be in my bag...and many others too i suppose, if their budget allowed it.

    Sidebar: These lenses are not an embarrassment: 35 1.8G (FF), 85 1.8G, 70-200 f4G, 80-400 f4-5.6G, 800mm 5.6E, we shall see what the new 400 2.8E has to offer. These are the lens that came off the top of my head looking back 2 years or so.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member

    Just because someone disagreed with you on the importance of one over the other in no way means they've attacked that observation. Suggesting that its "just childish" makes absolutely no sense. Stop making this stuff so personal.
    Thanks, Squeamish.
    As for the Clinton shot, 2 minutes of google searching led to this : http://guessthelighting.com/2010/10/12/platons-lighting-for-controversial-bill-clinton-portrait/

    "Camera: Hasselblad 553ELX with 30mm fisheye lens and Kodak Portra film. Shot at 1/60, f8, ISO 100."
    That's a GUESS the lighting article, though. I strongly doubt he used a large format, he almost always uses a Hassy, and it would also surprise me if it was a fisheye. The beauty of his work is that he doesn't do anything special. That's the specialty about it. Plain camera, plain lens, plain lighting. Sorry for all the people speculating about which expensive gear they would need to replicate his style, but it's not the equipment that makes his images.

    Thanks @Beso for the feedback.

    @Beso and @Golf007sd: I somehow don't get the point of discussing whether or not Nikon is capable of doing something or not. Who cares? Does Nikon belong to one of your parents, or why do people keep "defending" a stupid COMPANY. It's almost as funny as discussions about Apple.
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    I care because I have invested more than $10,000 in Nikon gear which will probably be worthless if Nikon goes out of business. I agree that is a stretch, but I care.

    Regarding Beso's comment, I agree with Golf that it is a stretch. However, Nikon has unquestionably been about superior quality despite the price. If the ability to justify the price based on quality is damaged, that could be hard for the company (which as I said above, could be hard on us).
  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    @WestEndBoy: I don't think Nikon will go out of business because it can't (or just doesn't) make a certain prime lens. Or because some other products aren't to your liking. Don't worry.
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    I don't lose sleep over it, but the probability is not zero (less than 10% I would say) and this is one possible path to that outcome.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    If Nikon goes out of business tomorrow, I'll come and grab your then worthless junk of Nikon garbage. For free of course, because you already said it's worthless $-)

    Good business for me and you don't loose just nothing.

    I wonder if you get an insight how overexaggerated your post is about Nikon stuff becoming worthless the minute they go out of business. There's no more Yashica/Contax manufacturer anymore but I don't see that stuff worthless to me - if I wat I still can shoot some film.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited December 2014
    @FlowtographyBerlin: As a consumer, we should all care about companies products we purchase. Nikon is just one manufacture that I have invested in. The same "care" should be applied to all products we buy. It would be unwise not to do so.

    Not every product a manufacture comes out with, will live up to its previous accomplishments. We praise them when they do, and we ridicule them when they don't. If we did not "care" such actions by us would not take place in the first place. Moreover, your bold and outstanding reviews, shows that you do care...specially about Nikon itself. You have just found their "widget" to be disappointing.

    I'm the type of consumer that takes pride in the goods I buy. I do my research and then I put my hard earned money down. Again, it would be "stupid" not to do so. I would like to believe that a great majority of us here in NRF do just the same. Again, your bold review is living proof.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited August 2014

    Boy, people get really touchy when you point out that the object they spent thousands of dollars on is flawed.
    In business we use the phrase "telling somebody that their baby is ugly". The reaction is quite predictable and universal :-)
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    Boy, people get really touchy when you point out that the object they spent thousands of dollars on is flawed.
    Tell me about it... 48 hours ago, I'd never imagined I'd get so many messages from 58G-owners who think I'm an ignorant retard.
    @FlowtographyBerlin: As a consumer, we should all care about companies products we purchase. Nikon is just one manufacture that I have invested in. The same "care" should be applied to all products we buy. It would be unwise not to do so.
    I think you need to relax on this. I have a lot more important stuff to care about than huge corporate constructs whose products I buy. And so do you.

    I care about what I buy, and yes I like to not buy BS, just like most people. But wouldn't put my signature below that that "taking pride" statement. There's more important things in life than what you consume.

    That's also why I find it a little disturbing how people are offended if someone dismisses a product they happen to own. God. Seriously. If I'm happy with what I bought, because it does what I want, great. If someone else thinks differently, he or she can go ahead and buy something else and be happy with that.
    In business we use the phrase "telling somebody that their baby is ugly". The reaction is quite predictable and universal :-)
    I didn't know that one. Yeah, quite accurate.
  • BesoBeso Posts: 464Member
    ...reinforces the point about how Nikon...in large part...has fallen behind the competition to the degree where it should be an embarrassment....
    With all do respect Beso, I find that to be quite a stretch. We are talking a single focal length here: a 50mm prime. Some don't like the current top end Nikon 50mm (a.k.a 58 1.4G)...fine, no problem, I can live with that. I myself find that to be true as well, hence why I own the Sigma 50 Art (as well as their 35 Art). But, that is only 2 non-Nikon lens out of 12 that I own. For me, nothing out their can replace the other 9 (RIP 50 1.4G). If the Zeiss offered the Octus with AF, I can assure you, it would be in my bag...and many others too i suppose, if their budget allowed it.

    Sidebar: These lenses are not an embarrassment: 35 1.8G (FF), 85 1.8G, 70-200 f4G, 80-400 f4-5.6G, 800mm 5.6E, we shall see what the new 400 2.8E has to offer. These are the lens that came off the top of my head looking back 2 years or so.
    @Golf007sd Maybe my statement was a bit of a stretch. However, if you look at some of the trends lately you will understand the context of my statement. Sigma, a company with a prior reputation for some pretty lousy quality control, has reversed their path and come out with two lenses (35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4) in less than two years that are clearly superior to Nikon's offerings. Not only has Sigma produced a superior quality product but the price is superior as well. The first "New Sigma" offering, the 35 f/1.4 Art, was an eye opener (and should have been for Nikon). The second, the 50 f/1.4 Art, indicates a trend which should cause Nikon to take the competition seriously.
    As for the 85s, I have been sorely disappointed with the 1.4G due to the CA. I probably should have purchased the 1.8G for 40% of the cost and pretty much the same quality. To produce two of the same focal length lenses with minimal aperture difference with virtually the same quality at widely differing price points is a mistake, in my opinion. Often I am willing to pay substantially more for that last increment of quality. In this case it simply was not present.
    Without belaboring the point, the bottom line is Nikon is hurting financially and the competition has indicated the ability to produce superior products at superior price points. Both of these facts should be cause for concern as well as action.
    Occasionally a decent image ...
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @Beso Sigma came out with more than those two lenses: the 18-35/1.8 for which Nikon has no answer yet. The 24-105/4 is also doing pretty okay and less costly than Nikon's 24-120. The 17-70 of Sigma, cheap and good, and they carry on.

    Whilst Nikon ist delivering the impression "yeah, we do have some f/1.4s, but our f/1.8s are equally or even better" I would have passed on the 85/1.4G if my decision for it would have been aware of the fact that a couple of months afterwards the 1.8 came out.

    Result: Whenever there's a Sigma alternative for a lens I want, I will not do a lot of research about the more expensive Nikon "competition". Maybe it's only a matter of time when they bring a lens I'll be disappointed of, but heck, then Nikon's still 3 lenses in advance I already was disappointed of.

    As for "pride for my gear" - it's not me who made it, developed it, tested it - I'm usually proud of something I'm involved in and did a good job with it - but gear is just tools. If they work well, great, pleasure and joy and whatever - but I don't feel heartbroken when I sell some items.
  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 567Member
    @FlowtographyBerlin: Thank you for the review. Lot of interesting things to think about after reading it.

    I don't think Nikon is a total fail for not making an Otus or an Art. They are special lenses and not needed for most work. But I do think Nikon has a problem with the 58 1.4. Very few people seems to like that lens. The pictures I see around the web seems ok to me. I am just not sure it is worth the high price compared to other lenses.

    I am very happy with my Nikon 50 1.8. It does most things very well. The same as my Nikon 85 1.8. If all you ever want is to shoot at "sane" apertures all you ever need is a 1.8 IMO.

    I am not trying to defend Nikon or take anything away from Sigma - I am after all very happy with my 35 Art and I can see that you really can push it all the way and get away with it. I am just not sure that everyone needs that ability.

    The Sigma is a new and different design compared to the "classic" Nikons. Maybe Nikon needs to review some of their old designs and ask themselves if they can deliver on the new sensors of today. I hope Nikon comes up with a design that is better than what they have now without making a huge and heavy lens like Sigma.

    Until they do Sigma seems like your best bet if you want the sharpest AF 50.

    Again thank you for your work with this review.
Sign In or Register to comment.