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

JJ_SO

@Vipmediastar Great portraits, I like them. I could not say (in this size) I like the Sigma versions more, because background is different. But for sure, I can say I don't like the 58 sooo much more, so say about 50% what it costs more.

FlowtographyBerlin

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

Ha, cool! Ok, so first thing, the framing: In order to get the same DOF with both lenses, you'll have to compensate for the focal length difference and adjust the distance. This is very easily done though, if you have an object on the level of the focal plane that you try to get to the same size. Ugh, sounds complicated, but it's not. So, say you take one of those portrait shots that you linked above:

Give your model (=focal plane) an object like a rod or a folding yardstick or something like that that they can hold up (horizontally). Frame in a way that the left and right image borders exactly touches the ends of that object. Now when you switch lenses, you simply back up or move towards your subject so that the yardstick again fills the frame (i.e. ends touch the image borders). This object can be anything, as long as it has marks that you can use to position the image borders.

Of course, that object is just for adjusting the camera, they should take it down for the shot. Make sure the model really stays exactly in the position and doesn't move in between your shots, and that they can position the reference object/yardstick/whatever the same as in the first shot. I.e. not "somewhere" in front of them, but e.g. on their chest, forehead whatever. You get the idea.

In order to not have to deal with to much variation from the adjustment of camera position, it's best if you level your camera on a tripod (i.e. parallel to the ground). Otherwise, moving the camera back and forth implies you will need to adjust height etc., which makes things rather complicated.

So the best thing is finding a good framing before, then set up your tripod correspondingly and level the camera. When you have moved the camera after the lens switch, just level it again, and you're set.

Concerning the motive, especially for the background and hence the bokeh, it looks like you have a good feel for picking the right stuff. Something with contrast and structure, just like in your above portrait shots, I'd say, but maybe the others also have some input on this.

Looking forward!

Golf007sd

@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?

Correct, on both accounts. Hence, my statement: "when used properly."

I'm sure we can all agree, if the end user doesn't know how to properly use a specific lens, they can and will produce poor results.

FlowtographyBerlin

Correct, on both accounts. Hence, my statement: "when used properly."

Ah, that's how you meant that. Ok, understood now, thanks.

Bokeh_Hunter

@FlowtographyBerlin - I think some things are getting lost in translation.
slimming/compression - probably the word "flatting" maybe would have been better to have used for you. The "/" when used in that instance means both terms mean the same thing.

There is no defined definition of what a "portrait lens" is or that a portrait is a frame filling head shot. The term just refers to a preference many have. The 50mm scientifically gives a normal (more accurate perspective to a persons field of view). That is not an opinion, that is fact. You can find all the evidence everywhere across the web that goes into optical design and why it works how it does.
Now, what focal length one prefers to use for portraits, is just a preference or an opinion (even if it is shared by most in specific a culture.) Where you see distortion start, I don't. There is nothing contradictory with saying a lens is used for many portraits, but I prefer a different focal length. Medium format systems use an 80mm which (depending on brand,sensor) is a 40-50mm focal length. I choose my portrait lenses based on the amount of the person I want, 3/4 = 35-50mm, 1/2 = 50-85mm, 1/4(head shot) = 85-135mm. In the end, any lens can be used for a portrait if framed properly and consideration is given to how it renders an image.

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.

That is just an opinion of how lenses are used. That maybe how you shoot, but people around me do not shoot that way at all. Most are using 24-70s & 70-200s and 2-3m is a norm here. Where I live, when people get closer than 2m (6ft) that becomes too close and it makes people very, very uncomfortable. That is just the sub culture. Just because you have a 28mm, doesn't mean one has to move close. That goes back to a portrait doesn't mean a frame filling head shot.

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

Why does it matter?

Vipmediastar_JZ

I did your assignment before you posted and today I did the Stairs shot.
Maybe I should have fine tuned the 58mm on this body but regardless the 50 art is sharp wide open in fact Today I got a reporter to volunteer for a photo and she was impressed and said that I was good at what I do. Well looks like the Sigma wins points in sharpness.

I didn't edit any except the one with the orange structure I brought down the highlights.

Focus on this shot is on the dent of the salt shaker

50 art


58mm


Focus on the closest bolt

50 art


Nikon 58


Focus is on the orange structure via focus and recompose

50 art


58 Nikon


Focus on star thru the hole

Sigma 50 art


58mm


Sigma 50 art Focus on the edge of star


58mm


Focus on edge
Sigma 50



Nikon 58mm



Well I'm pretty much done testing.

Regardless of what everybody else wants or needs and their type of photography I really enjoy sharp photos and today I really benefitted from shooting at low iso wide open at 1.4 and having a sharp picture instead of stopping down.

She was busy getting ready for her coverage so I took the snap and we exchanged our info.



I pretty much found My true 50mm prime. Im keeping two and one if them is the 50mm 1.8g Nikon for practical reasons and as an emergency backup.

SquamishPhoto

Nice post, VIP. I can understand why you found it so rewarding to be able to shoot sharp photos at f1.4
FWIW the first shot with the 58mm really shows how its just simply a smudgy blur rather than just being an out of focus point.

WestEndBoy

@................., 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.

...........

This thread has got me thinking. I am going to do test shots of different faces with my 50, 85, 135 and 200 and see if I always prefer the same lens or if it depends on the person. My preference for my 135 (though I still love my 85) may be influenced by my limited selection of models.

JonMcGuffin

This thread has got me thinking. I am going to do test shots of different faces with my 50, 85, 135 and 200 and see if I always prefer the same lens or if it depends on the person. My preference for my 135 (though I still love my 85) may be influenced by my limited selection of models.

Oh, this would be fabulous to see your results WestEndBoy. Please be sure to post!

@Vipmediastar - Wonderful pictures, thank you so much for taking the time and posting. Sigma 1.4 looks better to me, and you save $600 to boot. I'm just not getting the concept that the bokeh and "3d look" really separate the 58mm 1.4 at all. Nikon, to me, looks to have somewhat blown that release.

Jon

Msmoto

This thread seems to clearly indicate a few things. The Sigma is the winner in terms of AF lenses near 50mm. The Zeiss is the best if you have a lot of money and can manually focus. And, Nikon needs to take a look at some of their lenses, or a lot of us will be using more Sigmas.

As to sharp photos…. for sure, anything which suggests the image is not crisp and appropriately sharp will tend to appear less than quality. I use "appropriately sharp" so as to eliminate those images in which folks sometimes use too much sharping in post.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I heard and read that some of the best photos have not been sharp.
However it does help to have a sharp photo vs a smudgy photo.
I hardly ever do sharpening in post but I do use the clarity slider.
Yes the sigma wins in my book and after the 3rd test with my daugther my wife liked the Sigma.

The day I upload the following photo I titled it Looking Back. By conicedence there was a contest about Looking Back and I won the contest. It is not a sharp photo and it is at 1.4 with the 58mm to me it looks a bit 3D.
However 3D or no 3D I trusty wife more when it comes to critique as she is blunt and is not partial so I am keeping the Sigma.

Other comments from non photographers about the sigma have been "amazing" "wow he looks like a movie star" etc etc. Well all I can say if I'm getting good feedback with tests if I can improve my skills maybe I can have some really rewarding photos down the road.



Now its time to go out at enjoy some photography. Happy shooting.

JJ_SO

I heard and read that some of the best photos have not been sharp.

I read that too. Question is, would the best photos become worse if they were sharp? Maybe sometimes, in case the (lack of) sharpness is indicating a very fast action with no time for framing/focusing. But meanwhile this statement, as true as it was for photos from the past, became a bit of an excuse for slow AF, bad lenses and lack in skills. And I don't think it was the intention of the person who made the statement first. Anyway, I've nothing against unsharp pictures if I recognize an artistic concept in them. But I'm afraid, I've a lot against blurred pictures because the lens didn't allow better ones.

Welcome to the Sigma owner's club

Vipmediastar_JZ

@WestEndBoy too bad you don't have the N 105vr as with the balance I can pursue that lens.
@JJ_SO thanks. Now I Have two Sigma lens. I can't wait for the Sigma 85mm Art comes out so we can go thru this again.

WestEndBoy

Someday I will get a 105, but I am in no hurry with that focal length. If they replaced the DC with an equally sharp or sharper 1.4, I would be very interested. However, between the 85 and 135, I can zoom with my feet in the meantime.

JJ_SO

I suspect, there won't be much to go through. Sigma is just delivering excellent glass in the past two years and the more they do the better they get. Also, Nikon has not exactly much to hold against. Usually a bit more expensive and a bit less performance. Not a great combination to face competition, but I'm optimistic after my experiences with D810. And on Friday I will get my own one, yeah

Vipmediastar_JZ

Does anybody out there willing to try the Samyang 1.5 (1.4) 50mm when it comes out just for fun?

Samyang release link

henrik1963

I think it is OK to question Nikons lens line up when you see what Sigma can do with the Art lenses. But just to keep things in perspective: The Nikon 50 1.8 G is around $200. The Nikon 50 1.4 G is around $425. The Sigma 50 1.4 is around $1K.

The big question is why Nikon can't do better on a 58 1.4 when they want $1,700 for it.

The "best buy" seems to be the Nikon 50 1.8 G. If you want more - go Sigma. Only down side - Sigmas are bricks to carry. But they are worth it :-)

donaldejose

Samyang would be a possible choice it it were auto-focus. Without AF, only people with very good eyes and time will be interested. While Samyang does have some good glass, they need AF.

FlowtographyBerlin

@FlowtographyBerlin - I think some things are getting lost in translation.
slimming/compression - probably the word "flatting" maybe would have been better to have used for you. The "/" when used in that instance means both terms mean the same thing.

No, I don't think this is a translation issue. "Slimming" and "compression" are just two different things, and slimming is just not what the effect of a long distance to the subject is. A slash doesn't change that, either. :-)

There is no defined definition of what a "portrait lens" is or that a portrait is a frame filling head shot. The term just refers to a preference many have.

True. A portrait can be anything that portrays someone, just like others have pointed out. Nevertheless, the 85-150mm range on 35mm format is often referred to as "portrait". For the simple reason that at the right distance, they give you the right framing for single portraits. Classical portraits, like in yearbooks etc.

The 50mm scientifically gives a normal (more accurate perspective to a persons field of view). That is not an opinion, that is fact. You can find all the evidence everywhere across the web that goes into optical design and why it works how it does.

As I said, this has got nothing to do with the subject.

Now, what focal length one prefers to use for portraits, is just a preference or an opinion (even if it is shared by most in specific a culture.) Where you see distortion start, I don't.

Ok, so you're in a different distortion culture or something. That's cool.

I choose my portrait lenses based on the amount of the person I want, 3/4 = 35-50mm, 1/2 = 50-85mm, 1/4(head shot) = 85-135mm. In the end, any lens can be used for a portrait if framed properly and consideration is given to how it renders an image.

Exactly.

That is just an opinion of how lenses are used. That maybe how you shoot, but people around me do not shoot that way at all. Most are using 24-70s & 70-200s and 2-3m is a norm here. Where I live, when people get closer than 2m (6ft) that becomes too close and it makes people very, very uncomfortable. That is just the sub culture. Just because you have a 28mm, doesn't mean one has to move close. That goes back to a portrait doesn't mean a frame filling head shot.

Haha, so culture again. No, I don't think so. I pretty much said the same thing, the essence of which is a certain optimal distance, not for cultural reasons, but simply for photographical ones.

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

Why does it matter?

Well, it's just peculiar, and I was curious. Didn't know it was a secret or something.

FlowtographyBerlin

I did your assignment before you posted and today I did the Stairs shot.

Well I'm pretty much done testing.

Regardless of what everybody else wants or needs and their type of photography I really enjoy sharp photos and today I really benefitted from shooting at low iso wide open at 1.4 and having a sharp picture instead of stopping down.

She was busy getting ready for her coverage so I took the snap and we exchanged our info.

I pretty much found My true 50mm prime. Im keeping two and one if them is the 50mm 1.8g Nikon for practical reasons and as an emergency backup.

Wow, thanks for your work! Too bad for the distance thing in the first images, as of course the longer FL will produce a shallower DOF. But good to know you found your lens! :-) Nice shot, too, with the girl. In case you don't do that already, you should really focus on selling portrait work. Now that you have a good portrait lens (he he) too. <- supposed to be making fun of myself and the portrait lens argument above

Is it ok if I link your post?

FlowtographyBerlin

Samyang would be a possible choice it it were auto-focus. Without AF, only people with very good eyes and time will be interested. While Samyang does have some good glass, they need

Autofocus? :-) Just like the Zeiss.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@pitchblack and @JJ_SO . Good to know on the sharp photos. Thanks for the feeback and the history of them, I never thought outside of the box regarding that topic of unsharp photos. I can see for what applications a sharp photo would be ideal and soft for artistic purposes.

@FlowtographyBerlin feel free to link the post. Its always nice to help others learn as I have been learning the technical side of photography here.

And thanks for the comments and encouragement. I will pursue selling portait sessions but I need to work on a good business model too. Photographing buildings doesn't require much hassle other then sell the prints which has been working pretty well for me vs People sessions.

donaldejose

And a lot of people won't purchase the Zeiss either because it lacks AF. Both should get with the AF already.

heartyfisher

@Vipmediastar_JZ Thanks for the test photos. LOL but from looking at the same photos as everyone I came to the opposite conclusion.. I like the 58mm better than the sigma. However, the OP article does show just how much sharper the sigma and otus are! but for me, if I was given a choice of lenses between the 2 you tested I would pick the 58. mainly due to the "feel" of the images. yes its not as sharp. totally agree with that. I think your "looking back" picture captures that "feel". I would agree with Pitchblack too that the sharp sigma does show technical excellence and expertise. but ... .. sharpness is not everything ;-)

However, I am not a 50mm shooter .. and I don't think I will ever get any of these lenses :-) bec I would probably spend my money on something else first :-) but that's besides the point. I still prefer the look of the images from the 58 over the other 50s. if I do shoot 50 I would use my blurry old 50mm nikkor AIS. cost me $80 USD
Italian chef enjoying a day at the beach watching with a bit of amusement as a bunch of photographers work with his model girlfriend.

JJ_SO

... but for me, if I was given a choice of lenses between the 2 you tested I would pick the 58.

meaning, if you wouldn't have to pay for it?

With a little bit Gaussian softener it's easy to generate softer images with the Sigma. But what do you do to get the high resolution out of the 58? Anyway, I know there are people who're just loving the look of softer lenses and it's enough space for them in photo-world.