Willy Y. wrote:
You don't, you spend $1700 to have f1.4 when you need it.
True enough but hardly what I'd post to demo the strengths of a lens like this. Your shot of the lovely little girl does a convincing job showing off what the 58 does.
I'm coming from a 50/1.2 AIS and a NOCT; the former does nicely to about ƒ/5.6, the latter to ƒ/4. That's about it. Neither is an all-purpose lens and I wonder whether the 58 is as good as the 50/1.4G when stopped down.
I am happy with what it does at 1.4, I think it is a little over priced for a mostly plastic lens. It has great contrast, and I haven't shot much with mine yet but it is fairly sharp at 1.4 and very sharp up to f11, I didn't shoot past f11 yet. Anyway, buy it or don't, it's your choice, I am happy with mine.
I hate to be the one who points out the obvious. Especially since I have been a Nikon fan for so long and don't want to upset those who own the lens. But for me, this lens renders really poor image detail/contrast/sharpness. It has a lovely bokeh but that is about it. The 1.4G or AIS are just as good if not better. The 50mm 1.2 AIS would be a better choice if you want that classic look. Again, I'm sorry to say it but I am the one calling out the elephant in the room. Just look through the majority of the images on this thread and you will see what I am talking about. Great images posted by people but diminished because of the soft look.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
I hate to be the one who points out the obvious. Especially since I have been a Nikon fan for so long and don't want to upset those who own the lens. But for me, this lens renders really poor image detail/contrast/sharpness. It has a lovely bokeh but that is about it. The 1.4G or AIS are just as good if not better. The 50mm 1.2 AIS would be a better choice if you want that classic look. Again, I'm sorry to say it but I am the one calling out the elephant in the room. Just look through the majority of the images on this thread and you will see what I am talking about. Great images posted by people but diminished because of the soft look.
Please help me out here.
I'm trying to understand this soft/not sharp look that people claim to see with this lens. I was FULLY expecting a soft lens when I bought mine, but to my surprise, it is tack sharp wide open. What am I missing here?
This is shot wide open (focused on the bucket) and it's sharp enough for my eyes. Am I just blind?
Might not be enough sharpness and contrast for some, but then again, I PP my images so low contrast wide open means nothing to my images. If I want more, I add more. Detail and sharpness is enough to print F1.4 @ 20x30" without any noticeable difference to my Sigma 35mm. Above that, the Sigma takes the lead, but the Nikon is not far behind.
The nikon is sharp enough for any size print I do for portraits and it also has the best bokeh of any lens I have ever used.
DontShoot wrote:
Please help me out here.
I'm trying to understand this soft/not sharp look that people claim to see with this lens. I was FULLY expecting a soft lens when I bought mine, but to my surprise, it is tack sharp wide open. What am I missing here?
This is shot wide open (focused on the bucket) and it's sharp enough for my eyes. Am I just blind?
*shrugs* i hear yah dontshoot
some folks just want overly sharp (artificial looking, imo) eyes i suppose. sharp is subjective, but it can relate to the overall image surely. yes you can 'measure' it, but when folks are posting such beautiful images that are exhibiting sharp in focus subjects, in relation to the overall image is there something wrong with this type of photography?
