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

heartyfisher

... 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.

LOL price? yeah money wise if they were both free I would choose the 58 .. but really i don't think money is really the issue here.

In terms of getting an image softer .. yes good old Gaussian blur is my goto treatment ! but then again its not the blur I am talking about. If the 58 was sharper, so much the better but look at the highlights of the chair behind the yellow mustard bottle. and the background of the picture with the "star" grill. The background just doesnt distract at all .. and its sharp enough. for most pictures. I agree that if you are going to print huge the choice is the Sigma. but anything up to around 30" or more .. I think the 58mm is sharp enough.

SquamishPhoto

Im not convinced it has any magic, sorry. This was a two minute stab at rendering a similar framing and blur. Im sure someone else could do an even more convincing job with a little more effort.

heartyfisher

I dunno.. for this image you may be able to do some fixing but the other grill image there is no easy way to "fix" it.

I took am old 50 1.8D out the other night .. and took some photos in a night market (its stuck at F1.8 LOL ) .. it was ok.. but the bokeh was distracting for a 50mm. maybe one day when I can find a super cheap sigma 50 I will get one. but in the mean time. I dont shoot enough at 50mm to warrant getting a replacement for my 50 AIS.

JonMcGuffin

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

Nikon could right the ship here pretty easily. The Sigma has something going very against it and that is girth/size. If Nikon would care to release a revised 50mm 1.4 that is in the same general size/weight as the current 58mm 1.4, yet have it produce optically superior to that of the 1.8 (give it Nano Crystal coasting for instance as well), price it at around $699 they'd take a ton of market share back. In other words, give us a light weight lens, let it perform at 80-90% of the Sigma and price it 25% cheaper and they're good. Just my two cents.

FlowtographyBerlin

Without knowing the result otherwise, the problem here is that if the framing isn't adjusted, the DOF is different, hence the images are not comparable. There's really no point in comparing them anyway.

If anyone happens to have the 58G at hand and wants to do an A/B shot, please read my post on the simple trick how to adjust the distance/framing.

FlowtographyBerlin

< If Nikon would care to release a revised 50mm 1.4 that is in the same general size/weight as the current 58mm 1.4, yet have it produce optically superior to that of the 1.8 (give it Nano Crystal coasting for instance as well), price it at around $699 they'd take a ton of market share back. In other words, give us a light weight lens, let it perform at 80-90% of the Sigma and price it 25% cheaper and they're good. Just my two cents.

Totally!

Vipmediastar_JZ

Sorry for not doing a better comparison shot. My return window was closing and I took a much neeeded vacation with my family over the weekend so I didn't touch the camera from friday afternoon to monday morning.

I agree that the higlights seem to be more controlled with the 58mm.

My findings:

CA : Sigma did a great job controlling it.
Sharp: Sigma wins
Weight: Nikon 50 1.8g wins (all 3 are perfect for me)
Color: we all see colors diffrent but i give Sigma and Nikon 58 a tie
Character: Nikon 58 (something diffrent from the pack)
Bokeh: love it or hate it Nikon 58mm then Sigma.
Overall final Image: Sigma then nikon 58mm.
AF: Nikon 58 is snappy. Sigma and Nikon 50mm 1.8g both suffer in low light.

Today I took the sigma to the park and it struggled with cloudy skies and a break of sunlight in one part of the sky. Under the slide i tried taking a photo of my daughter only to miss the moment. Ill continue testing it low light and see if it was just a ramdom instance otherwise this is not good for low light photography.


Of all three lens that I had I would choose The sigma because I also do architecture and street life and I appreciate the sharper images vs the few that I did with the Nikon 58mm.
At 1.4 (maybe because I fine tuned it) a person on the other side of the street was sharp vs the
Nikon 58.
For going to the park ,dr, groceries with a dslr and prime nikon 50 1.8g
For night photography Nikon 58 but I have another lens for that.

I figured that even with the heavy sigma If I can carry it with a DSLR in my mini messenger bag I'm already producing great snapshots and you never know when that critical moment can be captured.

Photobug

@JohnMcGuffin said:
Nikon could right the ship here pretty easily. The Sigma has something going very against it and that is girth/size. If Nikon would care to release a revised 50mm 1.4 that is in the same general size/weight as the current 58mm 1.4, yet have it produce optically superior to that of the 1.8 (give it Nano Crystal coasting for instance as well), price it at around $699 they'd take a ton of market share back. In other words, give us a light weight lens, let it perform at 80-90% of the Sigma and price it 25% cheaper and they're good. Just my two cents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point. These are the Marketing decisions that they "must implement" to recover market share otherwise, Sigma and Tamron are going to slowly steal their market share. When the 3rd party manufacturers made less expensive lens with less quality Nikon did not have to worry. But now, they are losing out rapidly to the competition. Totally agree with you.

I would stay with Nikon glass if they did that. Otherwise, if I owned a FF DSLR I would buy the Sigma 50mm ART lens.

JJ_SO

@Vipmediastar_JZ if you miss a shot because of slow AF, it's not necessarily the lens in general - and I'm not defending Sigma or whatever. Matter of fact, I was surprised how fast the usually "not the quickest of the herd" 85 became in front of D810. Same goes for all lenses. I don't want to talk you into D810, but a decent AF on the camera side makes a difference in that case.

Now, as for those who are suggesting what Nikon should do to win back market shares:

How big is the market for 50mm?
Isn't it a bit saturated by now, also caused by our discussions?
If Sigma could have done it lighter - are you sure the wouldn't have tried?
If Nikon could deliver such a lighter but better lens, why did they bother with the 58?
Having an imagination of a price I want to pay doesn't mean having an idea of how to produce high quality at such a low price. And still stay in the calculation numbers price wise Nikon is used to be in.

FlowtographyBerlin

Sorry for not doing a better comparison shot. My return window was closing and I took a much neeeded vacation with my family over the weekend so I didn't touch the camera from friday afternoon to monday morning.

Sorry, it wasn't supposed to sound like that, I was just pointing out the problem with that condiments shot.

Color: we all see colors diffrent but i give Sigma and Nikon 58 a tie

I don't really care that much either, but since I measured this (also in the review): The 58G has the same (cool) color rendering as the 50/1.8G, the Sigma is closer to the warmer rendering of the 50/1.4G, with less green to it – technically, that is, because I've never noticed a too greenish rendering of the 1.4G before.

JJ_SO

@PitchBlack "you don't just buy expensive primes to be shot wide open..."

I'd see it the other way round: I don't buy fast lenses to NOT shoot it wide open. It's just too much money for f/1.4 and I hate to see it wasted. But for a pro, who gets it paid with the first session, it is not that important.

donaldejose

I am glad to see the 58 f1.4G does have some special qualities and is not just an epic fail for Nikon.

JJ_SO

@PitchBlack I don't have a 24-70

I can easily extend what i said to (I don't buy a lens and have to avoid certain apertures on the wide side because it becomes sharp not before f/4. I know, even the Sigma becomes sharper at f/4 but the difference between wide open and f/4 is not as huge as the 58's. I can't always pump up the lighting because my able-for-fantastic-microcontrast-bloody-lens needs more light. But anyway, I never saw the 58 as "epic fail", it's just a speciality I don't want to own - like a lensbaby or a Petzval lens or a super fisheye... just not my cup of tea.

henrik1963

I think price more than anything makes the Nikon 58 1.4 G a failure. Had it been a $600 lens noone would have barked at the lack of sharpness at 1.4 compared to the Sigma.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@Pitchblack well said on your previous post.
I really liked your studio shots when you posted in the 58mm thread and part why I ordered one.
However I realized that recently with the kids I dont have time to play at the studio. I like the framing of the 58mm too and the 2ft min focusing distance does help with what you said.

@JJ_SO I'm sure it was the lens. Its been raining since I got the lens to give it a fair trial. But with low light it does suffer. Having to fine tune to +20 doesn't sit well as the only lens in my bag that needed fine tuning. Check the exif in one of the photos from my test shots

JJ_SO

Sorry @Vipmediastar_JZ but it's the AF module of the camera which can fail in low light. For the lens it doesn't matter at first, it's motor will always work at max speed with some ramp at the end of it's way. But if it doens't get an impulse to move, it's not the lens' "fault".

I'm a bit surprised your 50 Art needs +20. My Sigmas all were around +5 at infinity and a little bit different to the other 3 distances, which I adjusted by the dock. Nikon themselves does recommend AFMA only when there's a reason because it does slow down AF, as they say (I'm not very convinced about that explanation, I admit). If you don't want to get the dock, you could send the lens to Sigma to get it adjusted there. I'm a bit paranoid when a certain limit is reached and find myself thinking "maybe it needs +22?)

WestEndBoy

@PitchBlack "you don't just buy expensive primes to be shot wide open..."

I'd see it the other way round: I don't buy fast lenses to NOT shoot it wide open. It's just too much money for f/1.4 and I hate to see it wasted. But for a pro, who gets it paid with the first session, it is not that important.

I will keep screaming this until I am blue in the face, you are not just buying speed. It's not wasted money. Just because two lenses can be shot at f8 does NOT mean they look the same. The colors are different. The 58/1.4g, despite all of its flaws, has spectacular colors. The colors of the 50/1.4g look dull in comparison, and it's not just a matter of just pumping up the saturation in post. It's just NOT. And even your 24-70/2.8 at f8 will NOT look the same as the 58/1.4g. The micro contrast on the 58/1.4g is just *superb*. I would seriously consider buying this lens if my style didn't tend to take me to f1.4

I agree with you 100% Pitchblack. I have noticed this too about the 58 and am considering buying the lens despite the sharpness issue. Too me it would be a pricey version of my 50 1.4G which I use on a regular basis despite its sharpness issues - when I am taking a serious portrait (say full body), I don't use this lens but for other uses it is fine. The 58 has the same general mediocre sharpness wide open, but nicer colours. I don't see the money as too much of an issue.

When I use both my 50s, I really notice this. Ignoring the fact that one is a 1.4 and the other is a 1.2, they are very different from each other at equivalent apertures in very different ways. I use both lens, depending on what I am doing.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@JJ_SO Thanks for the explanation. That seems to make sense and if I maxed it out at +20 I'm like you maybe it needs more +. After this weekend I'll ask for an exchange and give the new one a try. I called sigma and they said something about focus shift and if I can fine tune it in camera that is ideal but at the same time they didn't say go ahead and order a replacement but I will.

donaldejose

Those who like the framing of a 58mm lens might want to consider the 60mm f2.8 AF-D micro or the 60mm f2.8 AF-S G Micro. Not as fast, but sharp and less than one third the cost (from $200 to $600).

JonMcGuffin

Those who like the framing of a 58mm lens might want to consider the 60mm f2.8 AF-D micro or the 60mm f2.8 AF-S G Micro. Not as fast, but sharp and less than one third the cost (from $200 to $600).

I'm actually surprised the 60mm 2.8G hasn't found it's way into the conversation a little more frequently in regards to the 50/60mm prim discussion. I don't own it, but I hear it is razor sharp and probably does a good job in the CA area as well. Minimum focusing distance is obviously a non-issue too.

FlowtographyBerlin

I'm always wondering what kind of macro work would involve a 60mm, there's literally no room between your subject and the lens. What's that good for? (Seriously wondering, not trying to be polemic.)

It's f2.8 and it's not optically superb. If you're not doing macro work you can just stop down a nifty fifty and get similar results, right?

Exactly.

donaldejose

"Similar results" sure. I have not compared the sharpness between Nikon's 60mm macro lenses and Nikon's 50 mm f1.4 or f1.8 at f2.8. I don't know if there any advantage to shooting a 60mm macro in place of a 58mm f1.4 if you were stopping the 58 down to f2.8 anyway to sharpen it up. The 50 Art vs the 58 disussion in this thread hag taken a turn toward using the 58 stopped down to sharpen it up and I just brought up the idea of using the 60 macros instead in case anyone has knowledge about this. You don't have to pay $1,700 to get the 58mm framing (if that is what you like) and then stop it down a stop or two to get sharpness. Perhaps for $200 to $600 you could just use a 60mm Nikon micro instead. But, as I said, it is just an idea I raise. I don't know if those 60mm micros make for sharp portraits with good bokeh at f2.8. Maybe someone here knows.

donaldejose

For whatever its worth, but of course KR is not really discussing the use of these lenses as portrait lenses. That would be an unconventional application of them. But who knows, might work?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/60mm-afd-vs-afs.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/60mm-afd.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/60mm-afs.htm

WestEndBoy

I'm always wondering what kind of macro work would involve a 60mm, there's literally no room between your subject and the lens. What's that good for? (Seriously wondering, not trying to be polemic.)

It's f2.8 and it's not optically superb. If you're not doing macro work you can just stop down a nifty fifty and get similar results, right?

Exactly.

Postage stamps.

heartyfisher

Sharpness is just one variable. i would have to know more about the 60s ability to reproduce colors. i've never heard a professional rave about this lens, so I have my suspicions. Everything I've ever seen points to this being a rather average lens.

One of the guys at a small Australian forum I visit used to use the micros (60 and 105) for many if not most of his portraits.. a few years ago he was rated/honoured as one of the top 5 australian photographers. He use to do a lot of editorial glamour in his younger days. He also used to do a lot of album covers etc.. Mostly retired these days he does mostly real estate photography. For his own fun he shoots "mundane" old buildings in a "mundane" documentary way, and nudes of fat ladies with hairy armpits ;-) It may sound bad but they are gloriously simple images ! \m/ (ladies and old buildings)