i'm anxious to see how this lens renders for me on outdoor portraits with the bokeh, i knew going into this that this was not near as sharp as the sigma wide open but i have to say so far I am not even close to impressed with wide open performance. the lens is definitely in focus @ 1.4 but man it is not anywhere near close to sharp and AF fine tune doesnt help. I know AF Fine tune isnt required because if I stop down F2.8 then the lens becomes razor sharp.
Maybe you guys can look at these examples and let me know if this seems on par with what you all are getting with you copies?
1. wide open @ 1.4 SOOC 100% crop focus on eyes (very soft. not OOF just soft and green CA)
And in all its glory,,, a portrait of....... myself... dont everyone jump out a window on this one lol.
4. Wide open @ 1.4. I wanted a darker image similar to Sam Hurds George Clooney image (son was sleeping so i wasn't able to get out my parabolic umbrella to throw behind me for a back light.)
From what I've seen so far this lens is not meant to be viewed at 100% wide open, it's about the overall look and feel the whole image has. To my eyes the 4th image looks just fine.
"I know AF Fine tune isnt required because if I stop down F2.8 then the lens becomes razor sharp".
This does not necessarily mean that the lens tuned Maybe give it another AF tuning try?
hijazist wrote:
From what I've seen so far this lens is not meant to be viewed at 100% wide open, it's about the overall look and feel the whole image has. To my eyes the 4th image looks just fine.
"I know AF Fine tune isnt required because if I stop down F2.8 then the lens becomes razor sharp".
This does not necessarily mean that the lens tuned Maybe give it another AF tuning try?
I hear ya but there's still a certain level of sharpness required to keep the eyes somewhat decent looking. this is supposed to be a portrait lens and though the softness does help soften skin down @ 1.4, the eyes also suffer.
if the lens is perfectly sharp @ 2.8, AF fine tuning for 1.4 wouldn't help nor did it help in my instances.. the only thing AF fine tune did for me was make my subject sample more blurry both ways from the 0 setting and this was @ 1.4 on tripod.
I also look for CA when fine tuning, usually when i fine tune the lens, CA seems to get better as in the greens go away. on this lens when I did that, the greens went away on the Black text on white back ground but the letters become more OOF so that's also how i knew fine tuning wasn't doing anything more for this lens.
nextelbuddy wrote:
i'm anxious to see how this lens renders for me on outdoor portraits with the bokeh, i knew going into this that this was not near as sharp as the sigma wide open but i have to say so far I am not even close to impressed with wide open performance. the lens is definitely in focus @ 1.4 but man it is not anywhere near close to sharp and AF fine tune doesnt help. I know AF Fine tune isnt required because if I stop down F2.8 then the lens becomes razor sharp.
Maybe you guys can look at these examples and let me know if this seems on par with what you all are getting with you copies?
1. wide open @ 1.4 SOOC 100% crop focus on eyes (very soft. not OOF just soft and green CA)
2. stopped down to F2.0 SOOC 100% crop focus on eyes (much sharper and minimal CA)
3. stopped down to F2.8. very sharp here (super sharp no CA)
And in all its glory,,, a portrait of....... myself... dont everyone jump out a window on this one lol.
4. Wide open @ 1.4. I wanted a darker image similar to Sam Hurds George Clooney image (son was sleeping so i wasn't able to get out my parabolic umbrella to throw behind me for a back light.)
This is what I was referring to in my earlier reply that everyone took so personal and totally disagreed with me. The lens is no better than the 1.4 G but cost 4X. Yes it renders nice images and occasionally you get the sharp one. But let's not be blind. The lens is just mediocre. And if you go through many of the images posted in this thread you will see that almost all portrait shots suffer from the same problem.
Get the 50mm 1.2 AIS for portrait and you will be happy and save 1200.00
nextelbuddy wrote:
i'm anxious to see how this lens renders for me on outdoor portraits with the bokeh, i knew going into this that this was not near as sharp as the sigma wide open but i have to say so far I am not even close to impressed with wide open performance. the lens is definitely in focus @ 1.4 but man it is not anywhere near close to sharp and AF fine tune doesnt help. I know AF Fine tune isnt required because if I stop down F2.8 then the lens becomes razor sharp.
Maybe you guys can look at these examples and let me know if this seems on par with what you all are getting with you copies?
1. wide open @ 1.4 SOOC 100% crop focus on eyes (very soft. not OOF just soft and green CA)
And in all its glory,,, a portrait of....... myself... dont everyone jump out a window on this one lol.
4. Wide open @ 1.4. I wanted a darker image similar to Sam Hurds George Clooney image (son was sleeping so i wasn't able to get out my parabolic umbrella to throw behind me for a back light.)
Jorge Torralba wrote:
This is what I was referring to in my earlier reply that everyone took so personal and totally disagreed with me. The lens is no better than the 1.4 G but cost 4X. Yes it renders nice images and occasionally you get the sharp one. But let's not be blind. The lens is just mediocre. And if you go through many of the images posted in this thread you will see that almost all portrait shots suffer from the same problem.
Get the 50mm 1.2 AIS for portrait and you will be happy and save 1200.00
If it is just mediocre then why do I like it better than my sigma 35, 70-200mm vr2, 300mmvr2 etc for portraits? Are you telling me it is all in my head and the 16x24 inch prints I make with it wide open that look very sharp isn't the case because at 100 percent on a computer screen it isn't as sharp as the sigma or outs wide open?
Your not calling out any elephant, your just having trouble seeing it IMO.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
This is what I was referring to in my earlier reply that everyone took so personal and totally disagreed with me. The lens is no better than the 1.4 G but cost 4X. Yes it renders nice images and occasionally you get the sharp one. But let's not be blind. The lens is just mediocre. And if you go through many of the images posted in this thread you will see that almost all portrait shots suffer from the same problem.
Get the 50mm 1.2 AIS for portrait and you will be happy and save 1200.00
Jason_Brook wrote:
Some people are blind to anything but what a chart can show when it comes to lenses.
Jason,
I don't look at the charts. For me it's all in the pictures.
If no one can see the softness in these pictures when shot wide open then there really is nothing that can be said pro or con.
Here are just a few links from this thread that clearly show the lenses inability to get a sharp photo when needed. And no, It does not have to be Otus sharp. It just needs to be sharp enough.
Beautiful pictures here but soft eyes. Even on a small image like the one posted it stands out. A much larger one would make it distracting. But again, its a beautiful photo which makes the viewer overlook the soft eyes.
For the most part most of the portrait type pictures in this thread have soft faces and eyes. NOT all but most. I could probably go through every page and spot them. I'm not saying its a terrible lens. I'm just saying the 1.4 G 50 is just as good. Plus, you can't even focus close with the 58.
But I give up. I have come to the conclusion that this type of discussion is like politics or religion. No wrong or right it's just the way it is.
People buy this lens for overall rendering, ie. the look of the ENTIRE picture, not just sharpness of a small portion.
nextelbuddy: Those samples are correct - they are typical rendering of the 58 1.4G. You did NOT get a bad copy. This is exactly how it renders. The crop on the eyes are a liiiiiiiiiitle soft, yes, but just look at the last image ( https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3881/14615384417_4f6033c81c_b.jpg ) Just look at how it draws. Look at how the OOF part smoothly blends with the in-focus areas. In the NikonCafe Sig50A thread, you said that bokeh is more important to you than sharpness and micro contrast. If that's truly the case, then you've found your lens.
Jorge, I am glad you like the 50 1.2 AIS, it's a great lens no doubt. But its rendering doesn't even come close to the 58 1.4 and the bokeh of the 58 is miles nicer. The 50 1.4g is not even comparable. Add to that the fact that the 58 has AF. As for the price, I remember you raving about a certain $4000 55mm manual focus lens
People buy this lens for overall rendering, ie. the look of the ENTIRE picture, not just sharpness of a small portion.
nextelbuddy:
Those samples are correct - they are typical rendering of the 58 1.4G. You did NOT get a bad copy. This is exactly how it renders. The crop on the eyes are a liiiiiiiiiitle soft, yes, but just look at the last image ( https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3881/14615384417_4f6033c81c_b.jpg ) Just look at how it draws. Look at how the OOF part smoothly blends with the in-focus areas. In the NikonCafe Sig50A thread, you said that bokeh is more important to you than sharpness and micro contrast. If that's truly the case, then you've found your lens.
Image Quality
But we both felt the 58mm was not as consistently sharp at f/1.4 as the 85mm lens over the long haul. During a series of portrait shoots using both the 58mm and 85mm lenses at f/1.4, the new lens was disappointingly soft.
“There were stretches when every shot was out of focus,” Matter reports. Granted, shooting at an aperture as wide as f/1.4 is tricky business. The fall-off from the narrow focus point is meant to be severe to create that narrow depth of field and a dramatic, blurred background. But the 58mm lens’s fast f/1.4 aperture, which allows you to shoot in extremely low-light conditions, is part of the reason this lens cost so much and we wished it were more consistent.
The Bottom Line
We were divided over Nikon’s newest portrait lens, mainly because of the high price and the inconsistent sharpness at f/1.4. When it hits its mark, which occurred mainly at f/2 and higher, the 58mm f/1.4G is an extraordinary piece of glass that will make your portraits sparkle. But at its coveted f/1.4 aperture, which gives this lens its low-light-shooting prowess, results were disappointingly hit or miss.
I neither have this lens nor do I want it. However, it is a unique lens for its rendering and I can well understand why it is adored by many. As to conventional portraiture (e.g.,Nextel's sample images), perhaps not, but it is ideal, IMO, for environmental portraiture (e.g., Joseph's and Jason's images), as I understand that term. Perhaps this is an over-simplification, but it works for me in my evaluation process.
along the lines of sharpness, my 58mm is really inconsistent (or just generally not sharp). in terms of sharpness, my 85mm 1.4 is night and day better. i wish my 58mm was sharper, but i put up with it because the render is really nice on my df.
Okay, enough being told by people who don't want or have this lens that it isn't good enough for our needs and isn't sharp enough and blah, blah blah.... I'll continue to use it and print sharp prints at 16x24" at F1.4 that equal anything my sigma 35mm is capable of and much more while other continue to pixel peep a 36 megapixels image.....
Maybe give it another AF tuning try?
