Jorge Torralba wrote:
You dragged me back in when I said I was out. So. I did these just for you a few minutes ago while my boy is on his computer to show a 1.4 shot. Available light, wide open at 1.4 hand held. You cannot compare the sharpness from the two lenses. The 50mm 1.4 I posted clearly out shines the 58mm 1.4 in terms of contrast and sharpness. Bokeh is subjective so I won't go there. I wont argue with the bokeh of the nikon. it is clearly beautiful. Tomorrow I will capture something with better lighting and colors.
For me at least, your images undermine your point. Generally, what is the use of so much sharpness with a portrait?
Skin just can't hold up to the resolution. Who needs or wants to see every pore and imperfection.
One lens isn't "better" than the other. Both have their uses.
I own the Sigma 50mm and usually don't fawn over lenses, but the 58 definitely has something special for portraits in the field when it is in the right hands.
Well, Jorge has the honors of being the first person I've blocked on here. I have a terrible habit of not being able to hold my tongue and play nice. I'd rather not get the ban hammer here
Jason_Brook wrote:
Well, Jorge has the honors of being the first person I've blocked on here. I have a terrible habit of not being able to hold my tongue and play nice. I'd rather not get the ban hammer here
Well, I am surprised one would block someone for having a different opinion and discussing it in a civil matter. Oh well.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
Well, I am surprised one would block someone for having a different opinion and discussing it in a civil matter. Oh well.
What are you adding to this thread that is any way positive? You don't like this lens, we get it. You are the king of sharp photos.... we get that too. You think we wasted our money on this lens... we get it. We get it, but we are far from agreeing!
Yet you keep trolling this thread posting images from other lenses that don't even belong. This thread was never to discuss the pros and cons of the 58mm compared to other lenses. Start you own thread if you want that. This thread is for 58mm users and others who may be interested in the 58mm so they can see what kind of photos it can deliver.
But if you must continue to post your useless tight headshots from other lenses in some ill attempt to teach us a lesson about sharpness, then I too will add you to my ignore list.
I was one of the guys defending Jorge when he bought the Otus and everyone was hating on him. Didn't know he would turn around and smash us with his $4K lens. I guess sjms was right all along.........
I hope that someday you realize that Photography is not all about sharpness.
This has really gotten ridiculous. Go back and read my posts before condemning. I clearly state the lens renders beautiful images and the bokeh is lovely. Just because I think it is not sharp does not mean I am trashing the lens but I can still think it is over priced for what it does. I have a Zeiss 50mm 1.5 sonnar which exhibits the same softness as the 58. Yet I still use it and have not trashed it but I know it's shortcoming. Enjoy your 58 as I enjoy my sonnar. Tell me my sonnar is not sharp and I wont get offended because it is what it is.
Jason_Brook wrote:
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.
This post right here, is why I sold the 58. Right now I have the 50 1.8G. But two things that bother me about the 1.8. It needs some contrast. Not bad, just not as much as I want. But mostly, it doesn't give me BIG OL giant flare the way I want. But for 90% of shooters, the 50 1.8G is all you need. It looks like a total turd, feels like a turd, but it's really pretty outstanding. When you own a business, it's nearly impossible to justify $1700 vs $200.
That aside, I've said this like ten times now: If I was prosumer, or hobbyist, the 58 would be the only lens I owned. I'd work slow, overshoot, and enjoy the soft dreaminess.
ohsnaphappy wrote:
When you own a business, it's nearly impossible to justify $1700 vs $200.
I agree with everything you said until that point. Imo, when you own a business, you need every extra little bit to set yourself apart from others. If I were a hobbiest, I would shoot the 50mm F1.8g and be happy. The fact I own a business is why I purchased the 58mm. It just has that little extra, "je ne sais quoi", when you need it. I'm by no means a full time professional, but I want the best possible images and the 58mm gives me better images than the 50mm F1.8g.
Now if 50mm is a length you hardly use, then by all means fill the gap with the 50mm F1.8g, but I love the focal length and prefer it to 35mm and 85mm so I'd rather skimp on those and fill it with the best 50mm and for me, that is the 58mm hands down.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
This has really gotten ridiculous. Go back and read my posts before condemning. I clearly state the lens renders beautiful images and the bokeh is lovely. Just because I think it is not sharp does not mean I am trashing the lens but I can still think it is over priced for what it does. I have a Zeiss 50mm 1.5 sonnar which exhibits the same softness as the 58. Yet I still use it and have not trashed it but I know it's shortcoming. Enjoy your 58 as I enjoy my sonnar. Tell me my sonnar is not sharp and I wont get offended because it is what it is. ...Show more →
, the only reason it has gotten ridiculous is your posts trying to show us there are sharper lenses with better detail and contrast and blah blah blah. You have now just come a full 180 and are saying exactly what we have been saying and you have been arguing against. We know the limits of our 58mm. We use it, it isn't the sharpest lens at F1.4, but we enjoy it and it is sharp enough for our needs.
Hardcore wrote:
I agree with everything you said until that point. Imo, when you own a business, you need every extra little bit to set yourself apart from others. If I were a hobbiest, I would shoot the 50mm F1.8g and be happy. The fact I own a business is why I purchased the 58mm. It just has that little extra, "je ne sais quoi", when you need it. I'm by no means a full time professional, but I want the best possible images and the 58mm gives me better images than the 50mm F1.8g.
Now if 50mm is a length you hardly use, then by all means fill the gap with the 50mm F1.8g, but I love the focal length and prefer it to 35mm and 85mm so I'd rather skimp on those and fill it with the best 50mm and for me, that is the 58mm hands down. ...Show more →
You're right. If you're using the 58 as your signature, and separating yourself from the competition with it, then i think it's justified. That means you'll get really good with it too and you'll be able to handle some of it's shortcomings more effectively.
CGrindahl wrote:
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... ...Show more →
Funny you say this Curtis, because my recent foray into MFNG taught me how to appreciate character in a lens over sharpness. My 105 2.5 AIS is soft at long distances.. but it's an amazing portrait lens when you get reasonably close to the subject. The 58 is not a soft lens by any means, it's just a very, very difficult lens to focus at 1.4. I have several MFNG and I know they are NOT as sharp as their AF-S counterpart... but guess what, I still love them because they have fascinating character and are fun to use.
How often in normal shooting, does one shoot at 1.4? With ANY 1.4 lens, not just 50. My 85 f/1.4 is sharper at 1.4 than the 58 (IMO) but I'm not shooting portraits at 1.4.
Aren't most lenses better stopped down from their max aperture? I have gotten pretty sharp photos from 1.6, and that's not far from 1.4. By f/2..very good. I think f/2 on the 58 (at least my copy) is the sweet spot. Still has that beautiful bokeh, and yet sharp.
My copy of the 58..seems pretty sharp at 1.6…and that's still a pretty fast speed. And even f/2-2.8…allows for plenty of that beautiful bokeh.
In normal shooting, I'm not going to be shooting at 1.4, not portraits, landscapes..etc.
So my question is, was the lens designed to give beautiful bokeh, and a certainly rendering..stopped down say to 1.6 or f/2-2.8….rather than just be clinically sharp at 1.4?
, the only reason it has gotten ridiculous is your posts trying to show us there are sharper lenses with better detail and contrast and blah blah blah. You have now just come a full 180 and are saying exactly what we have been saying and you have been arguing against. We know the limits of our 58mm. We use it, it isn't the sharpest lens at F1.4, but we enjoy it and it is sharp enough for our needs. 