There are a lot of factors that I consider when I choose to stop down. The main one being how many people are in the frame. That is easy... If it is just a one person portrait, then it depends on how close I am to the subject. For tight head crops, then I agree, stopping down usually gives the best image so that the tip of nose to the ears are all in focus and you need F2 - F2.8 or even higher to get that. Your result will be nice and sharp as well because like you pointed out, this lens sharpens up nicely at F2 or higher and you will still have a nice creamy background.
If your doing full body shots though, your depth of field will increase as your focal distance increases so now shooting at F2.8 creates too much depth of field for my liking. I then shoot at F1.4 - F1.6 to keep the background a bit creamier.
Even at F1.4 and full body shots I don't have an issue with the depth of field being too shallow. The tough thing is actually hitting focus perfectly. It doesn't take much change to miss focus and therefore I usually use Continuous focus mode and shoot 3-5 shot burst for each shot. Usually 1 or 2 of them are bang on focus as the lens hunts back and forth ever so slightly. Just make sure you shutter speed is high enough to compensate for the slight movement back and forth of the AF system.
There is still something about this lens though that makes me want to shoot everything at F1.4 . I'm a sucker for creamy blown out backgrounds with nice fat round highlights.
DontShoot wrote:
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.
Oh dear, now I don't dare to reveal that I also have the Otus.
Why on earth is there any hate when someone has an expensive lens? I can't remember anything from Jorge that gave any offence when he talked about it.
photorebel wrote:
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?
I think the answer to this question is yes. Nikon clearly wanted to build a lens with a great bokeh and they sarcificed a little bit sharpness wide open for it. And they certainly created a lens with much character that is able to create fantastic pictures.
photorebel wrote:
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?
I'll get in kicks where I shoot everything wide open; sometimes shooting wide open is the only way to achieve the look I'm trying to portray, even if it sacrifices DoF.
I just picked up this lens and I love it already. My two favorite lenses while I was a Canon shooter were the 50L and 135L and this lens reminds me A LOT of the 50L. Same size, AF speed, unique dreamy character wide open, gorgeous foreground and background bokeh, but with better overall contrast. Both lenses seem to cause the same sort of controversy in regards to wide-open sharpness, value-to-dollar, and difficulty of use as well.
I'm a happy man to have Nikon's version of the 50L. Now if Nikon would just come out with a 135mm equivalent ...
Jason_Brook wrote:
I'll get in kicks where I shoot everything wide open; sometimes shooting wide open is the only way to achieve the look I'm trying to portray, even if it sacrifices DoF.
Seeing some of your images is what prompted me to hang on to this lens. I love how some of your photos have an almost 3D effect, especially with the little girl. Very nice. I just like the overall rendering.
shujert wrote:
I just picked up this lens and I love it already. My two favorite lenses while I was a Canon shooter were the 50L and 135L and this lens reminds me A LOT of the 50L. Same size, AF speed, unique dreamy character wide open, gorgeous foreground and background bokeh, but with better overall contrast. Both lenses seem to cause the same sort of controversy in regards to wide-open sharpness, value-to-dollar, and difficulty of use as well.
I'm a happy man to have Nikon's version of the 50L. Now if Nikon would just come out with a 135mm equivalent ...
I loved the Canon 50 f1/.2L…not so much a fan of the 135…but more due to FL, than optical performance..which was excellent. My favorite lens set up was the 50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.2L II. I used this for several portrait sessions.
That said, I actually prefer the rendering of the Nikon 58 over the Canon version (which was very good, as you know) .
The photos I"ve seen posted here..with the 58..are impressive. I'm just trying to work with the lens to get my shots to that level. I see what the lens is capable of.
Jason_Brook wrote:
You guys will quickly learn, I don't get out much haha
Shots like this is what makes this lens shine. You don't need the perfect outdoor environment. The surrounding areas included in the frame make this shot. Then the obvious strengths of this lens.....very pleasant bokeh and 3 dimensional look. Colors are great.
Oh and I'm not going to forget. Credit where it's due...then man behind the cam - great work as always!
Hardcore wrote:
Kind of liked this shot. It had horrible CA that I had to clean up though!
This is it. You have to backup from your subject. Bam! Perfection. When some people think portrait lens, they think headshots. The 58 doesn't shine as bright up close. But it's pretty magical for environmental portraits.
You're not going to get this kind of out of focus rendering with the Sigma or from the other two G lenses.
PS, that 810 is looking fantastic. I think Nikon has really refined the 810.
ohsnaphappy wrote:
This is it. You have to backup from your subject. Bam! Perfection. When some people think portrait lens, they think headshots. The 58 doesn't shine as bright up close. But it's pretty magical for environmental portraits.
Hardcore wrote:
Kind of liked this shot. It had horrible CA that I had to clean up though!
outstanding, such a dynamic shot here. This is a shot I know the sigma Art could not achieve. at least not as easily as the 58 can.
I just got my new 50 Art replacement yesterday and am going to pick up my 58 replacement today to test against each other to see ultimately which one I end up keeping though I have a huge feeling I am going to want to keep both as they both seem to have different purposes which i could find very handy.
The more I look at images shot with the 58mm f1.4, the more I feel that it works amazingly well at mid distances (let's say more than 3 meters) and a bit less well under 1.5-2 meters.
. I'm a sucker for creamy blown out backgrounds with nice fat round highlights.
