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

henrik1963

But it is usefull to know that you can get more normal looking pictures by stepping back a little when using a WA lens.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Yes it is. It's a nice tip for WA lens.
When I first got the Sigma 35 I tried it and if I was far back the portrait looks acceptable but if I was close well we get the fun house effect.

Mind you that for my tests of my daughter I shot close and I would have to run about 20ft both days and take pics of her walking or runing towards me. I can't remember what photos my wife saw in comparison if they were close or far but I will narrow down to 5 close and 5 far for each lens and post.

Otherwise what I noticed is probably what Mark said wide open the image is probably a throw away if for example you have a Bride holding the bouquet out then the hands and bouquet would probably be unnaceptable in comparison with her face focused properly and this is most likely at close distance shot and probably not much of an issue if one is stepped back a bit.

I did fell in love with Marks picture of the fancy house with the Sigma 50mm. I have gone back to doing architecture shots and well if it delivers in sharpness like my Sigma 35mm vs the 58mm that might just hit the nerve to switch.

It's been a fun learning experience here.
I do want to get a good 50mm so that I can use primes from 35mm-85mm range. I just have to choose if I want the sharpness or the bokeh.

JJ_SO

... I just have to choose if I want the sharpness or the bokeh.

Please feel free to remain in your error as long as you like If this thread didn't make it clear to you, that this choice only exists in your imagination, there will be dozens of others upcoming with another chance.

FlowtographyBerlin

'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.

Not a myth? Yes and no. In order to get the same general framing you have to get in closer, thus the same framing will be more distorted with a wider angle lens. you can't fill the frame with a 14mm lens without having that funhouse mirror look. So while technically it's the distance to the subject causing the distortion, in practical terms it's not incorrect to say.

True, with really wide angles, I'd guess this starts at 24mm, you get closer to the distortion that results from the fact that you're essentially squeezing something into the image frame that's not naturally possible. But again, this is not the effect that makes awkward – given that it's not at the edges somewhere. Anyway, if we're talking about the range that @Vipmediastar_JZ was referring to (35mm vs. 50mm vs. 85), the effect is a result of 100% subject distance, not focal length.

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: I don't think anyone think it is a good idea to make a fill-the-frame-head-shot with a 24mm. But sometimes it may be a good idea to use a 35mm to include more in the frame. You have made some good people shots with a 35. And they don't look funny to me :-)

henrik1963

@PitchBlack: Good shot of the house. So the Sigmas can be used at other F-stops than 1.4 :-)

We all know that the Sigma is "the best" wide open. But how much difference is there between the Sigma 50 Art and say Nikon 1.8 when stopped down to 5.6 or 8?

FlowtographyBerlin

You can blame it on distance, but in nearly all cases for the same framing, the wider the lens, the more the distortion.

Depending if I interpret your sentence correctly: That's *exactly* the point. The same framing (i.e. head and shoulders fill the frame) implies different distance for different focal lenghs. That's the whole point. Many people always attribute the resulting distortion to focal length. But it's the distance.

I was only making this point because the comparison was a 50, 58 and 85 mm lens in the beginning, and the point that one of these lenses would make a face look more "natural" or something. And that's just not the case (other than if you have a lens with substantial lens distortion). The difference here was most likely that the 50 shot was made at a lower distance.

FlowtographyBerlin

@PitchBlack: Good shot of the house. So the Sigmas can be used at other F-stops than 1.4 :-)

Which shot are you referring to?

Vipmediastar_JZ

@FlowtographyBerlin The one on today's PAD

@JJ_SO Well thank you for input. Thats what I'm here for, to learn.

I'm just holding on to it in error becuase my return window hasn't closed and I happened to buy it before this thread appeared. Nobody else on the net with their reviews showed what the blog pointed out until I was able to confirm myself.

Is it alright if I continue to post samples to support @FlowtographyBerlin review? I'm not denying its flaws as they do exist. Just don't call me a fool becuase I didn't buy the one you bought.
I like technical stuff and I learn technical stuff on this site and what better way than to ask questions and be corrected when I make mistakes.

As for the 35-50-55-85mm comparison, sorry I'm not good at explaining myself. I am aware of how the focal lenghts achieve different things but fail to properly type it on the web.
As for the 50mm I'll keep an eye to not focus as close to avoid the distortion.

JJ_SO

... I'm not denying its flaws as they do exist. Just don't call me a fool becuase I didn't buy the one you bought.

There's no need to overdrama and nobody called you a fool if I recall correctly. You can buy as much 58 as you like. I just wanted to point out that you stick with bokeh OR sharpness. Again, no need to do so because it's evident some lenses get you both, some others don't. And the opinions whether the 58 has a gorgeous bokeh or is just blurred - I've no opinion here, as I don't care about this lens. Even without the existing alternatives it is extremely priced in my eyes and for me not worth the money - very especially because others do a better or cheaper or both job.

I think, you should trust your eyes. If YOU like the pictures of that lens, don't care what others tell you. But I think, a comparison for yourself with a rented Sigma will tell you better than any of us what you prefer - and then stick with it and enjoy it.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Sorry, I wasn't directing the comment towards you and apologize as it is not my nature to wright such words.

I have placed an order to rent one and then decide. I'll put it to good use this weekend thats for sure.

Bokeh_Hunter

@Vipmediastar_JZ - I like the tests you did and I see the same things with the 58 that your wife does. If you wan't bokeh, the 58 is just better. It does have more compression, and I agree the colors are a bit different. The 85mm 1.4 has similar features.

Most forget also that the 58 1.4 is an equivalent of a 50mm f1.2 for DOF at the same distance as well. That is a boon for bokeh.

FlowtographyBerlin

Most forget also that the 58 1.4 is an equivalent of a 50mm f1.2 for DOF at the same distance as well. That is a boon for bokeh.

However, keep in mind that the 58 (or any 50) is still not a portrait lens; for a real portrait, you'll need to get too close and end up with the "too round" face look that @Vipmediastar_JZ was complaining about. But of course, it depends on how you define "portrait": If you mean something like what @JJ_SO posted here (person with some of their environment in the frame), this is different, but for classical close-up shots, 50s are not the best choice.

Golf007sd

50mm lenses, by nature, have very little distortion. Specially the one's you have tested. Personally, I feel they make an excellent choice for portrait photography. They don't called it "the classic 50" for no reason.

Knowing how to use any lens is key, 50mm's are no different. All one has to due in to know how much of a person you're trying to capture...and adjust your distance accordingly. Moreover, not everyone looks the same at a given distance; a person physical characteristic come into play quite often. Hence, for some 50mm will work great, for other one may need a 85, 105, or a 135mm.

Question: what is your definition of "classical close-up shot?" Shoulder up? What distance are you referring to in addition to composition?

FlowtographyBerlin

50mm lenses, by nature, have very little distortion. Specially the one's you have tested. Personally, I feel they make an excellent choice for portrait photography. They don't called it "the classic 50" for no reason.

But the point is exactly that the distortion that we're talking about here is not due to lens distortion.

Knowing how to use any lens is key, 50mm's are no different. All one has to due in to know how much of a person you're trying to capture...and adjust your distance accordingly. Moreover, not everyone looks the same at a given distance; a person physical characteristic come into play quite often. Hence, for some 50mm will work great, for other one may need a 85, 105, or a 135mm.

I've never met anyone who will look ok on a classical portrait-framing shot using a 50. The perspective distortion will make it look weird. I'd agree on the rest, though: Some faces look strange if you're too far away and use a 135mm, and they look better if you go closer (and use an 85).

Question: what is your definition of "classical close-up shot?" Shoulder up? What distance are you referring to in addition to composition?

Yes, shoulder-up. I haven't measured the exact distance in a long time, but it's something between 2 and 3 meters, I'd say.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I just want to add that the distortion was possibly more pronounced due to the 50mm 1.8g min focus distance is about 1.5 ft vs the 58mm at 2 ft. That Could be well why at close range the face looks rounder. I haven't had a chance to look at the photos again and compare at the long distance.

I did find a nice comparison in Bokeh from the one and only Ken You can read his conclusion.

WestEndBoy

50mm lenses, by nature, have very little distortion. Specially the one's you have tested. Personally, I feel they make an excellent choice for portrait photography. They don't called it "the classic 50" for no reason.

But the point is exactly that the distortion that we're talking about here is not due to lens distortion.


Knowing how to use any lens is key, 50mm's are no different. All one has to due in to know how much of a person you're trying to capture...and adjust your distance accordingly. Moreover, not everyone looks the same at a given distance; a person physical characteristic come into play quite often. Hence, for some 50mm will work great, for other one may need a 85, 105, or a 135mm.

I've never met anyone who will look ok on a classical portrait-framing shot using a 50. The perspective distortion will make it look weird. I'd agree on the rest, though: Some faces look strange if you're too far away and use a 135mm, and they look better if you go closer (and use an 85).

Question: what is your definition of "classical close-up shot?" Shoulder up? What distance are you referring to in addition to composition?

Yes, shoulder-up. I haven't measured the exact distance in a long time, but it's something between 2 and 3 meters, I'd say.


For headshots I go to my 135 and wish I had a 400.

Bokeh_Hunter

Most forget also that the 58 1.4 is an equivalent of a 50mm f1.2 for DOF at the same distance as well. That is a boon for bokeh.

However, keep in mind that the 58 (or any 50) is still not a portrait lens; for a real portrait, you'll need to get too close and end up with the "too round" face look that @Vipmediastar_JZ was complaining about. ...

I would have to disagree with that fully. Distortion you are speaking to originates going wider than the flange distance (46 Nikon). That is just basic optics. A 50mm shows minimal exaggeration of features if any. This is part of the reason why it is known as an "honest" lens where it mimics standard eyesight. (Just doesn't cover the full width of it. That is why anamorphic lenses were created.)

Now as a preference (which is just as an opinion), some would prefer a longer focal lengths for their slimming/compression characteristics that range shows. I prefer the 85-135 range personally.

As a reference:


Those examples are of course if you try to attempt to fill the face in the frame. In reality, no one opts for a 28mm lens to do that. Normally, most keep the same distance and change the focal length fill more (people/scene) into the frame, and eliminating the exaggeration of features.

FlowtographyBerlin

@Bokeh_Hunter: (Why did you get a new user account and mention your old in the signature?)

You're mixing many things into one pot. Normal eyesight etc. flange distance, all that. My point doesn't have anything to do with that, so I'm not gonna discuss that, because it's a separate topic. All I wanna comment on is the distance issue.

It's funny that you disagree only to agree in the next sentence. Your personal preference happens to coincide with that of many others including the common terminology: That's why the 85-135 range is called "portrait lenses". I've never heard anyone who knows what he's doing call a 50 a "portrait" lens (not saying you can't shoot portraits as pointed out before, but I mean portraits in the 'classical' sense, close-up framing).

I don't know where you heard that the 50 is called "honest" lens because it makes so "honest" portraits. At portrait framing, a 50s distance looks distorted, and you can see that *very* nicely in the series that you linked. It's the 85 distance where things start looking "normal".

You can also see that there's no slimming characteristics of distances as possible with longer focal lengths. Quite the opposite, things get more compressed, as you said, or flatter. Which is the reason why there are some faces that may not look very good if you're too far away, say 3-4 m, others look perfectly natural even if you shoot the way @WestEndBoy describes.

Those examples are of course if you try to attempt to fill the face in the frame. In reality, no one opts for a 28mm lens to do that. Normally, most keep the same distance and change the focal length fill more (people/scene) into the frame, and eliminating the exaggeration of features.

I would argue that most people won't shoot from a good portrait distance (2-3 m) unless the focal length forces them to. The distortion you get from a 28mm lens that you use to get very close is so evident that everyone will see it. The dangerous range starts around 35 or 50, focal lengths which allow you to get too close and not notice it directly. And then later, people will notice the strange look and complain that the lens gives too much distortion (as it has happened here). The 85 at least forces you further away from your subject.

Golf007sd

For those that are interested in seeing how a 50mm, when used properly, will do a great job for portrait, visit the link below.

Portait image taken with a 50mm on Flickr.

JJ_SO

@FlowtographyBerlin Fully agreeing all your points.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Since I brought it up hopefully we can dissuade about distortion about a portrait. It was an observation. I would use a 85-200 for portraits.
With a 50 i will be documentanting street life and my family and occasional portraits.
Here are some pics regarding my daughter. I tried to pick 1 photo from each lens that was similar in framing and distance for the first gallery with 3 pics.
On the second gallery the distance is a bit closer and you can tell how rounder her face looks. In person she doesnt look like that.

Gallery is here.

After fine tuning the lens to +20 I found the sigma to be very sharp at 1.4.

These are the types of "portraits" I'm aiming with a 50.

Nikon 58



The rest with sigma 50 art

FlowtographyBerlin

@Golf007sd: That gallery also features many demonstrations of how not to use the 50 for portraits. But I think it's just a search result, right, you didn't select anything specifically?

@JJ_SO: That makes it easy. :-)

@Vipmediastar_JZ: Ugh! The bokeh of the Sigma is so ugly. Just kidding of course. Quite another good example for those people spreading the rumor that sharpness and bokeh are a trade-off. Beautiful images, just like last time.

Do you still have the 58G and the 50 Art? Just in case you have time and are up for it, I'm still looking for someone taking my invitation (click). Despite the many visitors, no one has taken it so far. Your images look like you're shooting the right motives anyway. If you're up for it, I can tell you a simple trick to easily compensate for the focal length difference.

Sports

For those that are interested in seeing how a 50mm, when used properly, will do a great job for portrait, visit the link below.
Portait image taken with a 50mm on Flickr.

Thanks for linking. One will have to say that there are many excellent portaits, but some of the pictures do show what can go wrong, when using a 50 for portraits, IMHO. (Edit: Oh, Flow.. already made a comment like this.)

Vipmediastar_JZ

@FlowtographyBerlin Challenge accepted. That's why I'm here. Give me my assignment. I have both lens with me today.

Ok this might not be the best test with different light in both days and different framing. Plus I know I wasn't standing in the same spot.

But in regards to bokeh I found that depending on the framing and relative distance of background and foreground along with focal plane you can get a similar image. I hope that is not a false stament on my behalf. Regardless of which is sharper The 58 I accidentally left off exif data off so I can guess it is at 1.4 or 1.8 and the 50 art at 1.4 after +20 fine tune. My first attempt rendered a rather soft image for the test shot.

58mm



Sigma 50 art