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

donaldejose

I was suspect of the Nikon 58mm f1.4 when I noticed the promotional images Nikon used were NOT shot at f1.4. Why not? I suspected it was too soft at f1.4 so they used images shot at f2.

Bokeh_Hunter

I was suspect of the Nikon 58mm f1.4 when I noticed the promotional images Nikon used were NOT shot at f1.4. Why not? I suspected it was too soft at f1.4 so they used images shot at f2.

There is a rather simple answer and it's not a conspiracy. I don't know a working pro who hasn't learned to shoot stopped down a stop or two. One eye sharp and one eye fuzzy for 20 frames for anything doesn't get you repeat business. It's about the appropriate depth of field for the image, not trying to impress blogs and forums.

It seems that 3 out of ever 10 threads on this forum deal with sharpness. And 99% of the "issue" comes down to 3 things, to slow of shutter speed, too high of ISO, or shooting wide open.

rmp

I'm afraid Bokeh_Hunter nailed me. In 80% of my pictures I was either shooting wide open, my shutter speed was too slow, my ISO was too high, or I was shaking too much. Then my daughter gets in the act and deletes the bad compositions -- another 20%. Since that leaves me nothing, I simply must go back and try again. But this time I will put film in my camera. Oh well, another vacation will not hurt.

tcole1983

Shooting wide open is only a problem if the lens can't handle being shot wide open. Photographers stop down often because they have to, not because they want to. I happily shoot at f1.4 in probably 50% of my shots because I *can* and I like the look. I can *easily* do with with my 85/1.4g, 50mm/1.4 Art, and 35/1.4 Art.

Oh, and I'm a working pro.

I am not a working pro but frequently shoot all my lenses wide open and I haven't ever been disappointed with the results. However two of my four lenses are fx and I am shooting dx...so maybe that makes a difference?

Msmoto

As this has moved to a discussion on bokeh and DOF, my tendency is to shoot stopped down one, two, or more stops to give me a bit more DOF. I will shoot wide open, primarily when the light is so poor as to push me to the limit.

We all have our reasons to capture what we like, and each individual has this choice. One is not necessarily better than another. I may like the f/64 club, or the ones who shoot wide open…

One of the interesting points is some of the best lenses are not very fast, especially as we go to larger format. On 4" x 5" format I used to shoot Schneider f/5.6 and f/8 lenses, and we stopped these down as well.

In reading all the comments, I attempt to grab the information which I can find useful, and there is much to hear on NRF, especially if we accept each individuals opinion as being 100% valid for their own experience.

donaldejose

I tend to shoot as Msmoto does but still I wouldn't buy the Nikon 58mm f1.4 due to its poor performance wide open. Just not worth the price unless you really see something special in the bokeh at f4 and think your viewers will also. I would rather have better sharpness for less money.

FlowtographyBerlin

In reading all the comments, I attempt to grab the information which I can find useful, and there is much to hear on NRF, especially if we accept each individuals opinion as being 100% valid for their own experience.

Well said.

Concerning the aperture on 4x5, it's worth mentioning the DOF-equivalent value of f/5.6 would be something below f/2.8 on 35...

FlowtographyBerlin

Just not worth the price unless you really see something special in the bokeh at f4 and think your viewers will also. I would rather have better sharpness for less money.

What I found is that from f/2.8 on, the bokeh of the 58G is pretty much the same as with the other Nikkor lenses.

SquamishPhoto

Shooting wide open is only a problem if the lens can't handle being shot wide open. Photographers stop down often because they have to, not because they want to. I happily shoot at f1.4 in probably 50% of my shots because I *can* and I like the look. I can *easily* do with with my 85/1.4g, 50mm/1.4 Art, and 35/1.4 Art.

Oh, and I'm a working pro.

I am not a working pro but frequently shoot all my lenses wide open and I haven't ever been disappointed with the results. However two of my four lenses are fx and I am shooting dx...so maybe that makes a difference?

Nope, you're just careful and have a steady hand. Hardly unusual.

Bokeh_Hunter

I'm afraid Bokeh_Hunter nailed me. In 80% of my pictures I was either shooting wide open, my shutter speed was too slow, my ISO was too high, or I was shaking too much. Then my daughter gets in the act and deletes the bad compositions -- another 20%. Since that leaves me nothing, I simply must go back and try again. But this time I will put film in my camera. Oh well, another vacation will not hurt.

Don't feel bad about the "throw away" shots, most events and sessions I shoot I might only deliver 5-15% of the images. Some things you can controol, most things you can't.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I did take a look on flickr for 85 1.4g and to see what the bokeh was all about. It seems maybe 75% of the photos I saw and had exif were stopped down to 1.8-f4 anyways and the CA was present just like the 85 1.8g on mine but yet people still go with the 85mm 1.4g for the bokeh.

I asked a question earlier if at 1.4 do we want sharpness or bokeh and somebody replied that we want both. While true I think what I learned here at NRF is that you have to compromise with one or the other.
In comparison the 84 1.4 vs the 85 1.8g seems they are almost the same by f2 and the 1.8g is slighty sharper wide open.


I did go and shoot some more 58mm shots and have yet to view on the laptop.
This weekend I will re-try the 50mm 1.8g and compare and not only that if I perceive that it fails to deliver I'll send it to Nikon for repair.

When I mentioned that by f2 it is sharp it is only to say that if the lens is claimed to be soft then stopped down to f2 those claims of softness dissapears. While the Sigma 50mm Art is already sharp at 1.4 that is a plus on the sharpness side.

Maybe I got a good copy and hence why my photos are spot on and sharp at 1.4. Like it was noted there is no focus shift.

Somewhere on the internet I found a user who did not get a good copy and sent it in for repair and Nikon adjusted the Defocus Control

I'm not a photography technician so I was curious of the Defocus control

Therefore I asked Nikon if the 58mm had a Defocus Control built it but not advertised or similar to the 105 dc and 135 dc and they said no but they said this

"Its fast f/1.4 maximum aperture produces outstanding evenly lit images with edge-to-edge sharpness—virtually no sagittal coma or light falloff. Its unique design and rounded 9-blade diaphragm produce stunning bokeh and depth of field control from f/1.4 to infinity."


I haven't used the lens hood and I have no flare.

If by definition Bokeh is blur then why is the blur of the 58mm not desired vs the smoothness of the Sigma 50 art? Just a question not a matter of argument.

My post is for observation purposes not to start an argument.

FlowtographyBerlin

That definition that they gave of the 58G (is that correct?) is pretty strange, given the characteristics that people assign to it.

Bokeh is not blur by definition. Where this is "challenged", the bokeh of the 58G is blurry, while that of e.g. the Zeiss or Sigma is not. You can see that in the chart shots as well as in pictures you can find on the net of fine high-contrast structures, such as rulers, which make a very nice motive.

JJ_SO

"Its unique design and rounded 9-blade diaphragm produce stunning bokeh and depth of field control from f/1.4 to infinity."

I re-read that sentence and the moment re-appears that makes me think others do use a different kind of English. Are they talking about aperture, DoF or something else? Maybe it's only me not understanding.

It's great you're happy with the lens - I don't want to spoil it. Never used it, never will, I'm totally happy with my Sigma which gives sharpness and bokeh wide open and both in (to my eyes) stunning quality. I think, it's not possible to generalize "bokeh" because of the quantity of factors going into it. Aperture, distance to the sharp object and distance to the bokeh parts (lights, heaven, very close objects) and of course the reflection of light of those bokeh parts, their structures, opacity. All serious testers say just the same: It's impossible to judge this qualities in one go.

What I learnt is sharpness of details can be reduced in post - but not increased. I'm not talking about raised sharpness sliders, I'm talking about what different lenses bring to the sensor. Raised sharpness sliders let the bokeh suffer. So, I left this with NX-D defaults (I've no idea what this app does for sharpening)



I want this result, and in the sharp parts I want an impression of the texture - therefore a certain amount of resolution is essential. That was f/1.4, ISO 250, D810 and here's the converted original size.

Another example:


Under the bottom of this glass the letters are sanded.


The Sigma gets me the texture of this characters and it gets me a bokeh to my taste: The bokeh in contrast with the sharpness and resolution wide open is what I want.

rmp

Do the flowers look better in real life or in the picture? :>

rmp

P.S. I broke down and ordered one.

Bokeh_Hunter

Somewhere on the internet I found a user who did not get a good copy and sent it in for repair and Nikon adjusted the Defocus Control

I'm not a photography technician so I was curious of the Defocus control

I'm sure all that refers to is an internal element that helps the bokeh not an actual "defocus control" like the 105/135mm DC lenses. I don't think it is anything to get hung up on.

No so long ago manufactures built "soft focus" lenses with filter (shotgun pattern) and with specifically designed elements to keep the center of the image "sharp" but blur everything else. The idea was that you would stop the lens down for the correct DOF needed, but still retain critical sharpness in the center. Defocus control was an evolution from that.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@JJ_SO by all means I rather get it spoiled and in the end I make the right decision.

i like your glass shot.

JJ_SO

Do the flowers look better in real life or in the picture? :>

At the time of the shot: In real life of course. Today: I prefer the picture I haven't seen a Delphinium for a while and I like the transparency and structure of their blossoms. A friend got this bouquet to her birthday, it was on a table, with a daylight window. There's no more pp involved than using NX-D and converting it to JPG.

Therefore I'm always puzzled if somebody thinks the Sigma lacks a bit of bokeh

moreorless

.

...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.

The real issue I'd say is that a lot of these lenses are aimed at very different users who value different aspects of performance. The F/1.8 primes seem aimed at general use, good sharpness wide open and cheap but perhaps not the very best bokeh or rendering idealy suited to portraits. The super tele primes are likely aimed at pro sports and wildlife shooters who want designs without compromise with max sharpness.

The 58mm on the other hand seems to be aimed at portrait shooters who do not value super sharpness(or sharpness in the corners of the frame) highly but do value smooth bokeh and highlight rendering.

Honestly for me even though its questionable whether the OP's focusing distances in his bokeh test were similar to those a portrait shotter might use it still clearly looks the smoothest of the bunch to me. The building on the left of the frame for example is distracting in every other shot BUT the 58mm wide open.

A specialist market certainly but I wonder whether the Sigma 50mm 1.4 will have as wide a market for general users as many suspect, the 35mm 1.4 was a lot cheaper than its Nikon and Canon rivals plus is a lens many would consider for general purpose, the 50mm is a lot more expensive and far larger and is a lens many would consider a bit more specialist. Its the same with the 18-35mm f/1.8, people went crazy about the specs and performance but when push comes to shove its a lens without a significant market, if you want low light and DOF control FF and a 24-70mm F/2.8 gives more range whilst ASPC with a 17-55mm f/2.8(or a Tamron/Sigma 17-50mm) also gives more range at less size.

donaldejose

Reliability is priceless when you only have one chance to get a shot. Some people say to always use Nikon glass to insure this reliability. It is good to hear that Sigma Art series glass functions reliably.

Vipmediastar_JZ

When it comes to trust there is no doubt about it, picking a lens that will deliver especially if you have a good copy.

On saturday I did a a test of the 50mm 1.8G and 55mm 1.4G both were on the Tripod and triggered the flash and my subject (lens on a table) where both in focus. The bokeh without a doubt was more present on the 58mm.

Yesterday I tried the 50mm 1.8g again and for focus and sharp issues it was good wide open with a few missed shots out of focus. It was near sunset and I pretty much photographed my daughter walking, running, playing in the park and it was good besides some bad comp and funny gestures I have lots of keepers and in the background maybe 1000 ft away I can make out the trees so the bokeh is not blurry rather smooth.
I like the 50mm because I can have a small setup and go on the slides with my daughter and take pics but the problem with mine is that it is rather inconsistent in focus speed especially lowlight. The D810 and 50mm 1.8g floor sample that I tested had the same AF results.

Tomorrow there will be sunshine so maybe I can sneak in another 30 minutes worth of photos on the 58mm at the park and let my CFO decide wich one she likes more. I like the 58mm with its 3D look.

I did receive some feedback from another blogger (no names unless he comes here and posts) He mentioned that his sigma 50mm 1.4 art was incosistent in AF and was returned and push come to shove he would choose the 58mm anytime as well as his photography partner.

While I do appreciate the OP's tests and everybodys feedback I will say that depending on the light source the CA is bad and some out of focus shots but I have pretty much done street photos and maybe tomorrow in my test I can have my daughter dressed up and maybe she can stay still for some portraits.

Tonight if possible ill update this thread with the tests shots.

Golf007sd

...it was the lens in my bag that I trusted the most to get the shots that I needed...but I would never trust the 58/1.4g to get reliably usable shots unless I stop down.

No photographer, pro or enthusiast, should have a lens in their bag that they do not trust...regardless of who, the manufacture is. I know every lens in my bag, moreover, every equipment I own, will deliver the results I seek. If I'm unable to obtain the shot, it is only my limitation in knowing how to do it. Hence, I'm the one that needs to "stop down."

Vipmediastar_JZ

Weather changed and I took photos of my daughter today. I asked my wife which ones did she like best and she said 58mm because the colors are more vibrant. She didn't know which was which lens.
She also noted that her face looks rounder/longer with the 50mm vs the 58mm it looks more appealing and normal with the 58mm Similar to why we choose a 85mm for portraits.
Yesterday I did start out with the 85mm but she always comes to me and I can't focus because of the focusing distance and my wife said that the 85mm looks similar to the 58mm in looks (the face)

The observations of my wife were neutral she is unaware of this thread so that's why I asked for her opinion.

I have yet to process those photos and maybe I can share some.
I did see what could be a problem with the 58mm. If shot wide open the foreground like a body part could be blurry or really out of focus. My daughters face was focused and when she raised her arm I can see the issue but that is mostly the shallow depth of field and focal plane.

Here are saturdays test. Literally I only had 15 mins free time and I used it take these tests
No editing was done and exported from ViewNX and I forgot to turn off the TV to the left and back of frame.

Focus is on the focus switched with sb-910 and tripod mounted.

50mm at 1.8g


58mm at 1.8g



50mm 2.8g



58mm 2.8g



24-70 50mm 2.8



24-70 58mm 2.8g



I tried the 50mm today and yes it was still slow to focus it was raining and I was under a roof and it took a while to acquire focus and it is a bit sharper at 1.8g IMO However missed shots are missed shots.

I'm going to give the 58mm another week or so to try it with flash as well and then if I'm not satisfied I'll consider the sigma for sure.

Just my observations. Feel free to comment. This is how I learn when people more knowledgeable point out what I was unaware of.

FlowtographyBerlin

@Vipmediastar: It's not the focal distance that makes the face look rounder or flatter, it's the distance to the subject. If you have two different focal length lenses and don't change subject distance, they will produce the same image if you crop them to the same framing. Of course, this is given the lenses don't vary substantially in their own distortion values. Just use ACR to neutralize this factor. But really, the main component is the distance to the subject. So it's NOT, not, not, the lens that makes a face look "rounder" or "flatter".

And with a D800, you always have lots of room for cropping.

haroldp

FlowtographyBerlin is absolutely correct.

Perspective and ' Perspective Distortion ' is a simple function of distance, not focal length or FOV.

Lens based optical distortion looks quite different.

'Wide Angle Lens' distortion is one of the most persistent myths in photography.

The reason for the 'long nose' in portraits using WA lenses is that the photog usually gets in closer to fill the frame.

The reason for the flat perspective or loss of dimensionality or 'depth' in portraits using long teles is that the photog usually gets farther back to fit the image to the frame.

The main reason that 85-100mm (for 35mm frame) is considered the 'sweet spot' for head and shoulders portraits (of adults), is that the usual frame fill leaves on far enough back to avoid long noses and ears, yet close enough to show some perspective and 'depth'.

This all depends of course on the effect one is trying to achieve. Photographing a politician who you do not like, by all means get in close with a WA lens.

... H