though, its been said that the 58 does wonders for environmental photography. hardcore's (sorry to use you as an example sir hardcore) use of this lens is seriously some of the best work ive seen for the 58 outside of a working 'pros' blog or even from any manufacturer, including nikon themselves.
i bring in the example of the 200mm f2 because it renders beautiful bokeh and insane subject isolation. its just a great combination altogether. the Otus does wonders as well on both OoF and isolation and measuring perfectly. but even with the funky mustache metric the 58 was built with adds to its own modern character. i just dont know if counting the pores on someones face needed for an environmental lens...the 58G obviously is not critically sharp at MFD, but we keep going around in circles on known facts.
btw, i'll match your steering wheel stitching and bokeh shot with a shot of my own. straight out of my camera uploaded directly from memory card. and no, this isnt from an OTUS either
Jorge, F4 make no sense. no need to pollute this thread if you don't like this lens. Buy the one you like and so be it. Your images might be sharper, but I prefer what I see from 58G though I have no plan to add this lens myself.
This is most interesting lens from Nikon I have seen, and it did win best lens award in Japan for a good reason.
Jorge, with all due respect, I don't understand the point of this post. Maybe I'm just too lazy to look up the exif, but what lens are you displaying and are they wide open?
This thread is devolving into one of those conversations where someone tells you they were once a photographer because they owned a film camera in the 90's with a lens or two.
The 58 renders gorgeous images where other lenses would have a very nervous bokeh in the same setting. Hardcore's images of the kids clearly shows that and I just hope someone who has the 58 and 50mm (ex 50 1.4g) to shoot it side by side wide open in a similar setting.
Again, the only lens that comes close to this rendering is the Rokkor 58 1.2 at f/2 and the Nikon 58 is a much more corrected lens with a modern design and AF.
I have pictures sitting at home comparing the 58 to 50/1.8G. The 50/1.8G is damn near identical to the 50/1.4G......except better. I'll post them up when I get home. The scene does not fit well for the 58, but it shows all the subtle differences in how it blends the colors/contrast/bokeh. The 58 really reminds me of the 85/1.4D with how it renders highlights.
hijazist wrote:
Again, the only lens that comes close to this rendering is the Rokkor 58 1.2 at f/2 and the Nikon 58 is a much more corrected lens with a modern design and AF.
I prefer this lens over Rokkor(which is indeed one of best) I have seen. It has better Bokeh at f1.4 and better or match Rokkor at f2. This lens will perform wonderfully at f2 if you want sharper image. The closest match of this lens are Leica 80mm summilux R and 75mm Summilux M, both manual.
This is the Bokeh King of modern lens.
It is all about focus transition, some people prefer POP, but that is not the way I see world, not the lens I want use for my portrait.
Remarks from the Camera GP Japan 2014 Executive Committee regarding Lens of the Year selection
"This lens represents a modern version of Noct NIKKOR lenses by offering excellent rendering of distant points as points at maximum aperture, and beautiful blur characteristics in close-ups. Differences in rendering resulting from changes in aperture setting or shooting distance exhibited by this single lens are also appealing. It is an ambitious lens that makes mastering it enjoyable by daring to be unique at a time when size and balance are emphasized. This lens clearly reflects the intent and exacting nature of its developers."
I like this:
"It is an ambitious lens that makes mastering it enjoyable by daring to be unique at a time"
It is just a tool, pick your flavor. I will stop here.
Jason_Brook wrote:
This thread is devolving into one of those conversations where someone tells you they were once a photographer because they owned a film camera in the 90's with a lens or two.
I hear ya Jason.
I own the 58g, know plenty about it's "faults", love shooting with it, and I don't consider the lens to be overpriced. I just showed a bridal client her images, and she absolutely loved them. What more do I need?
I hate to state the obvious, but like Lowell said, this thread is just going to end up going in circles. The pattern of discussion is very predictable. This lens isn't for everyone, and I know I'm certainly ok with that, as are most of the others that shoot with it. But I would say this to the detractors... you are not going to convince any of us that love this lens to abandon it because it isn't as sharp as lens x, y or z. We all have computers and can view images at 100%, yet still keep using the 58. We can all probably shoot something else in our bag in tight at f/4, and have fantastically sharp images, especially if we help them along a little bit in post. But that's not where I'm most delighted with the 58g, so I'll probably rarely use it that way. Problem solved right?
What's with everyone's obsession with sharpness? Whenever I see people posting cropped 100% of people's eyes, it makes me laugh. What moron looks at photos like that? when you take family pics, do you just crop their eyes, blow it up and print just the eyes? Whatever happened to appreciating the ENTIRE photo because of the way it's presented, composed, and rendered?
DontShoot wrote:
What's with everyone's obsession with sharpness? Whenever I see people posting cropped 100% of people's eyes, it makes me laugh. What moron looks at photos like that? when you take family pics, do you just crop their eyes, blow it up and print just the eyes? Whatever happened to appreciating the ENTIRE photo because of the way it's presented, composed, and rendered?
i dont need to crop to 100% to see if an image is sharp in the eyes or any where else BUT i do need to crop to show some people that dont know what sharp is or isn't.
Also everyone appears to have different levels or expectations of what is sharp and what is not. i have seen some images in here where people say the image is sharp and i fall out of my chair because its no where near what I accept as sharp.
Same as people that post up wide open 1.4 shots from their 85 1.4G and say "omg its razor sharp" then in my mind i picture seeing them in person and they have just recently shaved with their "sharp razor" and they have blotchy areas of facial hair because their razor isnt actually sharp but they have no idea and are "ok" with it.
nextelbuddy wrote:
i dont need to crop to 100% to see if an image is sharp in the eyes or any where else BUT i do need to crop to show some people that dont know what sharp is or isn't.
Also everyone appears to have different levels or expectations of what is sharp and what is not. i have seen some images in here where people say the image is sharp and i fall out of my chair because its no where near what I accept as sharp.
Same as people that post up wide open 1.4 shots from their 85 1.4G and say "omg its razor sharp" then in my mind i picture seeing them in person and they have just recently shaved with their "sharp razor" and they have blotchy areas of facial hair because their razor isnt actually sharp but they have no idea and are "ok" with it. ...Show more →
Exactly. As stated in my original post with my image. I was providing a sample of what I consider an image to be when someone says it is sharp. This way they can see what I am talking about. I guess even Morons have to establish a baseline for reference.
I've not shot with this lens and doubt I'll ever buy one since I remain fixated on MF Nikkors, but I do want to share a comment about sharpness. When I bought my first DSLR, the Canon 300D I bought the versatile 28-135 and really appreciated the flexibility that zoom gave me. But Canon kept having these wonderful sales with great discounts on camera and lenses. A friend bought a 300D and I added two of Canon's professional lenses to the order. When I mounted the 70-200 f/4L it took my breath away. That was when I learned about what sharpness in a lenses offers to a photographer.
One of the things I love about MF Nikkors is they appear uniformly to produce sharp images, even wide open. Of course I have to work a bit since these are all manual focus lenses but I'm rather spoiled now. A soft lens really doesn't cut it for me any longer. Granted, fast lenses offer a challenge because the focal plane is so narrow that getting the photo you want, with the focus where you want it, is difficult. AF engines will do quite well at f/2.8 but at least so far as I understand, getting faster than that makes AF a bit of a crapshoot. And focusing screens in modern DSLR cameras don't necessarily help.
If you love this lens, enjoy it folks. If it doesn't work for you, move on. I do it all the time...
sheesh, this crap gets so old, and such a waste of time. I blame myself for starting to get sucked into another black hole of photographer mumbo jumbo.
...as if none of us saw this coming from a mile away.
Driveitputtit wrote:
sheesh, this crap gets so old, and such a waste of time. I blame myself for starting to get sucked into another black hole of photographer mumbo jumbo.
...as if none of us saw this coming from a mile away.
Yeap. I am part to blame. But I 'm out now Throwing in the towel. Regardless of my opinion on the lens. there are some beautiful shots here.
DontShoot wrote:
What's with everyone's obsession with sharpness? Whenever I see people posting cropped 100% of people's eyes, it makes me laugh. What moron looks at photos like that? when you take family pics, do you just crop their eyes, blow it up and print just the eyes? Whatever happened to appreciating the ENTIRE photo because of the way it's presented, composed, and rendered?
The 58G to me represents the current benchmark for the portable 'normal' prime. It has great rendering performance wide-open while being well-corrected for lateral CA and vignetting unlike alternatives from Nikon's or Canon's systems; it's closest competitor, really, is the now discontinued Sigma 50/1.4 EX.
But unlike the old Sigma, or the new Sigma, the 58G is light; it's only 2/3rd the weight of the Canon 50L that it's positioned against, and less than 100g heavier than either company's 50/1.4 options.
Further, it sharpens up nicely in the center when stopping down from wide open, and it sharpens up across the frame when stopping down to studio or landscape apertures.
On Canon, if I were to pick up the 50L or 50 Art, I'd want to keep my 50/1.4 USM as the lightweight option- but on Nikon, I'd be satisfied with the 58G fulfilling this role alone. I'd like to see Canon try to match the 58G's flexibility as they look to upgrade their aging 50mm line.
I have used the Canon 50 f/1.2L and the 85 f/1.2L II. I actually prefer the 58 to Canon's version, which I thought was very good. As far as the 85s go, I prefer the Nikon 1.4, mostly because of faster AF, lighter weight, but optically I thought they are both excellent.
That said, I'm putting my 58 up for sale, just don't need it..AND the 85. But I saw so many excellent examples posted here, taken with the 58, I gave into lens lust. Temporarily forgetting, it's not just the gear, but the photographer using the gear.
Yeah, this is definitely a lens that can be a very expensive mistake for people not willing to work with it. In many circumstances, the 50/1.8G goes toe to toe. Push the limits and there's a clear winner.
For example; see below. If it weren't for the EXIF, I doubt many would be able to tell.
I have trouble telling which lens I used…(58 or 50 f/1.4) I used..when taking photos of an object or plant. IMHO, the 58 shines in portraiture…especially environmental portraits. I can see an almost 3-D effect in some shots posted here, like in some of your shots for example. Just such an overall smooth rendering. Unfortunately, my shots don't look like yours, and I strongly suspect, it's not the fault of the lens.
and no, this isnt from an OTUS either 
