Donzo98 wrote:
Nope... not insecure... but you guys continue to try to convince us that the lens is overpriced and not worth it.
We simply disagree... that's all.
Lots of haters on FM about the 58G.
I don't know about others, but none of my posts contain any arguments meant to convince other's to adopt my viewpoints about this lens. None at all. I merely stated MY opinion that this lens is exceedingly soft at f/1.4, which makes the selling price more than a bit ridiculous since every 50mm lens looks great stopped down.
Lots of haters on FM who hate people who have their own opinion.
rattymouse wrote:
I don't know about others, but none of my posts contain any arguments meant to convince other's to adopt my viewpoints about this lens. None at all. I merely stated MY opinion that this lens is exceedingly soft at f/1.4, which makes the selling price more than a bit ridiculous since every 50mm lens looks great stopped down.
Lots of haters on FM who hate people who have their own opinion.
Question then....
Do you find these 2 samples below exceedingly soft @ 36 mpix & F1.4? Personally, I do not, and I print images like this shot at F1.4 that look much better than the record breaking sharpness from the Sigma 35mm. I was also a hater of this lens like you when It was first released. I thought it was "exceedingly soft" as well, but I finally came around to the fact that this lens does in fact render better. So I purchased it and was pleasantly surprised by how sharp this lens really is and how usable it is when you print it.
P.S. These 2 samples are at close focus distance where this lens is the worst. As you stretch it out further, the sharpness improves and I'd say surpasses the Sigma 35mm at infinity.
Hardcore wrote:
I was also a hater of this lens like you when It was first released. I thought it was "exceedingly soft" as well, but I finally came around to the fact that this lens does in fact render better. So I purchased it and was pleasantly surprised by how sharp this lens really is and how usable it is when you print it.
I felt the same way, maybe not so much a hater of the lens, but had no interest. But I kept seeing some stellar images posted, after photographers learned how to use the lens. I tried one, and now I'm learning how to use the lens.
The two examples you linked…look very good to me, and certainly not exceedingly soft. Eyes look rather sharp, IMO. However, it's the overall rendering, that I find pleasing.
photorebel wrote:
I felt the same way, maybe not so much a hater of the lens, but had no interest. But I kept seeing some stellar images posted, after photographers learned how to use the lens. I tried one, and now I'm learning how to use the lens.
The two examples you linked…look very good to me, and certainly not exceedingly soft. Eyes look rather sharp, IMO. However, it's the overall rendering, that I find pleasing.
No, I don't think they look soft either. I would actually use the term sharp, but what do I know.
The images uploaded onto FM's website lately are showing a lot of compression and blocking and artifacts which is why I choose to upload those full resolution images to my smugmug page. The same 100% crops I posted here on FM loose a lot of sharpness by the compression....
But, if your honestly going to sit here and tell me that those samples are exceedingly soft, then I better get my eyes checked!
Who cares about a 100% crop on a 36mp body The pics looks insanely good on print and on the computer at the desired sizes.
If you look at 100% crops with ALMOST ALL LENSES... they will most certainly fall short.
I remember I had 17-35 that was excellent... when I looked at 100% crops on my older bodies, they didn't look so hot. The overall rendering however was amazing.
With that said... I recently bought a Siggy 50 ART to try...
rattymouse wrote:
I have a Canon 85L II, so I understand both depth of field (meaning narrow) as well as sharp, wide open at F/1.2.
This Nikon lens is exceedingly soft even when the focus has been hit.
But as long as your amused, I guess that's worth $1600.
If you know a lot about Canon glass, you're no doubt aware of the unique rendering characteristics of the 50 1.2L. Also a soft dreamy lens when shot wide open. Both lenses from both manufactures have a cult following, both are quite expensive. both are very unique. I don't see anything to complain about.
I'll also add that this lens offers the best bokeh of any lens under $2000. I think it's better than 85 1.4 G. I think it's as good, if not better than the 85L or 50L. For many photographers the bokeh more than warrants the price. Try using this lens with the Brenizer method and you create magic.
With all that said. This lens has its faults. All of which have been documented throughout the thread.
ohsnaphappy wrote:
I'll also add that this lens offers the best bokeh of any lens under $2000. I think it's better than 85 1.4 G. I think it's as good, if not better than the 85L or 50L. For many photographers the bokeh more than warrants the price. Try using this lens with the Brenizer method and you create magic.
With all that said. This lens has its faults. All of which have been documented throughout the thread.
+1
In the last six months I had the 50L and 50 Art; neither of them are close. Only one I think that comes close (bokeh wise) is probably the 55mm Sonnar for Sony.
Do you find these 2 samples below exceedingly soft @ 36 mpix & F1.4? Personally, I do not, and I print images like this shot at F1.4 that look much better than the record breaking sharpness from the Sigma 35mm. I was also a hater of this lens like you when It was first released. I thought it was "exceedingly soft" as well, but I finally came around to the fact that this lens does in fact render better. So I purchased it and was pleasantly surprised by how sharp this lens really is and how usable it is when you print it.
P.S. These 2 samples are at close focus distance where this lens is the worst. As you stretch it out further, the sharpness improves and I'd say surpasses the Sigma 35mm at infinity.
Sorry, no photos loaded when I clicked these links. Only the smugmug background loaded. I'm in China, where the internet rarely works so that probably is the cause.
Jason_Brook wrote:
Do you guys use your 85s much since getting the 58? I'm unloading my d700 and wanna add glass, but dunno what.
Hey Jason,
I never liked the 85mm focal length much. Didn't do much more me and I much prefer 135mm. I also like the 35mm length, but not that I have the 58mm it just seems to suit my shooting much better was well. I agree with a 58/135mm combo!
Do you find these 2 samples below exceedingly soft @ 36 mpix & F1.4? Personally, I do not, and I print images like this shot at F1.4 that look much better than the record breaking sharpness from the Sigma 35mm. http://coreyhardcastle.smugmug.com/Other/58mm/i-GkT8F36/O
Absolutely soft. The freckles and eye lashes are obviously soft. No offense intended. Please don't take this the wrong way. but if you think that is sharp then you should consider glasses.
On the other hand look at this. shot at f4 from another lens. This is only posted to show what I would consider sharp. Granted . It is at f4. butit is NOT an otus.
And here is one at f2 hand held at 1/15 of a second
Jorge,
i see what youre talking about, but at this level, whats the point of cropping out what this lens does best?
i mean do folks crop out the bokeh of a 200 f2 just to see whats sharp? dont folks want to see just as much as the entire image as possible when photographing people/living things out in the open?
