bernardl wrote:
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.
bernardl wrote:
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.
It this feeling shared by owners?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
No. You see soft "close" shots because the DoF is so thin and the shots are OOF. Lens is tack sharp everywhere, ONLY if you nail it.
bernardl wrote:
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.
It this feeling shared by owners?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
DOF is just razor thin. It's really more about using the proper aperture given the distance to the subject. The lens is sharp enough wide open at any distance, you just have to find the focal point.
Jason_Brook wrote:
No. You see soft "close" shots because the DoF is so thin and the shots are OOF. Lens is tack sharp everywhere, ONLY if you nail it.
I look forward to seeing your posts. You really make this lens shine.
ok day one of testing. I decided to pit these 2 lenses head to head outside. for the sigma being 8mm wider, I moved the camera closer to my subject to emulate the 58mm composition as much as I could. for the car pictures some of them I left it alone as it was starting to rain and I wanted to wrap it up.
This 58mm seems the same as the last one I had if not a tad softer but not by much. in all honesty if it weren't for the composition in some of these I could have a tough time telling which one was which. some images you can tell as the 58mm picture has slight swirl bokeh present and its a little tighter.
This copy of the sigma 50 Art I have is really holding its own so far for me but there is still something about the nikon 58 that I dont want to let go of. its not the image character... its just that its such a beautiful lens and its a nikon.
For the 3/4 car shots I was trying to show of the 3d look that these lenses can have. The sigma isnt doing too bad but since its 8mm wider it stuggles ever so slightly against the 58G
for the portraits its yours truly as I have no one else to test on this late at night (took these around 11:30pm.) these were all shot at 1.4 with an SB900 boomed above and an sb800 as a kicker.
For the Bokeh images, I was really trying to show off specular highlights here (not testing the swirl) and my previous copy of the Art has inner circles which I thought was normal but this copy doesnt do it at all and the specular highlights look cleaner than the 58G. if you zoom in on the 58G bokeh balls you wil see it actually has onion circles (very very faint) and the sigma does not.
the nikon 58mm 1.4G overall has a soft look to it. its still sharp enough for me and I like it but it has a soft dreamy feel to it. the Sigma is sharp through out and feels like it cuts paper. it would make a fantastic studio lens as its as sharp as most lenses that have to stop down.
Thanks for taking the time to put together that comparison. That said, if either of these lenses is a huge waste of money, it is the Sigma as those images look identical to the 50/1.8G. They both isolate and make the subject pop, and they both have very nervous bokeh.
The 58's character is so incredibly subtle until you get it in a sweetspot. Like I was telling Joseph yesterday, the logical side of my brain is having a real tough time holding onto this lens. Take my post above, the 1.8G could NEVER pull off that first shot, but the second one it could do all day.
Thanks for the comparison shots, nextel. I can easily spot the 58G shots without looking at the notes. This made me love my 58 much more, it is exactly the look I'm after. Look at the necktie on the last image, it is much blurred than the Sigma shot, while still retaining sharp eyes. The 58 shot makes your face pop more from the background. Lastly, when I shot with the 50A, I noticed that it's FL is somewhat shorter than 50mm, kinda like the old Sigma 50 - somewhere around 45mm. That extra length of the 58 creates compression which flattens facial features.
DontShoot wrote:
Look at the necktie on the last image, it is much blurred than the Sigma shot, while still retaining sharp eyes. The 58 shot makes your face pop more from the background.
Now that you mention it, the necktie is more blurred in the 58 shot. I was looking at the eyes (which look sharp on my monitor). So..yes, the 58 gives a more pleasing rendition.
Thanks for pointing out about the neck tie. And that's a good point about compression and FL too.
Jason_Brook wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to put together that comparison. That said, if either of these lenses is a huge waste of money, it is the Sigma as those images look identical to the 50/1.8G.
I guess different strokes for different folks. After looking at the comparison, I was thinking the differences are so subtle that the 58 isn't worth $750 more. In reality both lenses have their strengths and depending on the situation either one may be better at that specific moment. It's our job to pick what is best for our needs and maximize the capabilities of these fine lenses.
Buckeye2604 wrote:
I guess different strokes for different folks. After looking at the comparison, I was thinking the differences are so subtle that the 58 isn't worth $750 more. In reality both lenses have their strengths and depending on the situation either one may be better at that specific moment. It's our job to pick what is best for our needs and maximize the capabilities of these fine lenses.
To confuse things even further, I bet you would say the same thing if you added the 50mm F1.8g into the mix. That is the best bang for you buck out of any of the 3 imo. I am willing to pay that extra money though for the 58mm. I just love the creamy bokeh and the fact that you can shoot it in any environment and it still ends up producing top notch shots.
is there a slight difference in color rendition between the photos? The car side view of the wheels stands out to me where the color is a bit different..maybe it's just the white balance? But i imagine the conditions were the same so I'm not understanding why the pictures look slightly different.
Yes, i can tell the art is sharper, especially based on the face shot.
one reason why I like the 58mm over the art is the much smaller size and lighter weight. Not sure if that alone is worth $700, but it's important to me based on how I use the lens.
Yup, thanks for the nice comparison. The 58 1.4 is easily distinguishable and much superior IMHO and to my eyes it's not a subtle difference. I am sure in other situations this difference will be even more pronounced. The highlights & bokeh in the second shot are much nicer and smoother which is evident in the second shot. As Hardcore also mentioned the necktie demonstrates how smoothly blurred the OOF elements are.
This is all of course a very subjective thing and others might appreciate the Art's clinical sharpness more and wouldn't recognize any difference in rendering. Also there is the question of price and whether the 58 1.4 is worth this subjectively nicer rendering or not. To me it's definitely worth it but I am positive that it's not for others.
I'll include my two cents. The Siggy is sharper without question, while the N58 renders significantly better; It's a rather easy read for these aged eyes. They are two distinct lenses each of which emphasizes a different need/want. It is rather silly, IMO, to draw comparisons, as it's apples vis-a-vis oranges. Financial considerations aside, I personally emphasis sharpness (as I visually see it) and would opt (and have indeed purchased) the Siggy. If at some future date my priority or need changes, so too will my choice of lenses.....or, I may add the N58 without selling the Siggy.
