I haven't shot much with 50's and but did have a Zeiss a few years ago which rendered beautifully. My only complaint with it was that my keeper rate was not as high as shooting with an AF lens.
Nice comparison. At this scale & distance, I can't see much of a sharpness difference but the boken difference is huge ... I like the new Nikon 58 the best.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Nice comparison. At this scale & distance, I can't see much of a sharpness difference but the boken difference is huge ... I like the new Nikon 58 the best.
I agree, nice comparison. For bokeh you must also consider that these were shot at equal subject distances, so the DOF is shallower on the 58, giving it what might be considered an unfair advantage when evaluating the bokeh.
Nov 24, 2013 at 01:51 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
snapsy wrote:
I agree, nice comparison. For bokeh you must also consider that these were shot at equal subject distances, so the DOF is shallower on the 58, giving it what might be considered an unfair advantage when evaluating the bokeh.
Too many postings from the same photographer can become a bit repetitive and tiresome so I think it's time to move on. Hopefully others will post a few. Anyway, here's a final bokeh example:
As always,thanks for sharing Joe! I don't think I could ever get tired of see you work with the 58. Either way looking fwd to see you in other threads.
Too many postings from the same photographer can become a bit repetitive and tiresome so I think it's time to move on. Hopefully others will post a few. Anyway, here's a final bokeh example:
At least you have one mate, so keep posting.
Here in Australia we can't even get one. My store can't even give me a definite price or date.
So keep shooting and posting.
Regards
Bud
snapsy wrote:
For bokeh you must also consider that these were shot at equal subject distances, so the DOF is shallower on the 58, giving it what might be considered an unfair advantage when evaluating the bokeh.
Right. It strongly affects the validity of the comparison.
What really needs to be done in this type of comparison is for the pictures to be shot at the same framing.
D. Diggler wrote:
Right. It strongly affects the validity of the comparison.
Do you have any pictures to share backing up your statement? I'd be curious..
I'll leave these kinds of tests to others more interested in it,
but the overall impression of the transition to the background continues be smoother with the 58mm/1.4G vs. the 50mm brethren.
Moving 16% backwards with the 58mm doesn't change this ability of the lens that much.
In case people are interested in a full size base ISO shot. Someone in a german forum asked this question how the 58mm's sharpness would look like not impeded by high ISO settings normally used in AL photography.
So I woke up my dog (to explain his boring face expression),
used the D800E, dialed the flash to its lowest setting, set the D800E to ISO low1, f1.4.
This shot is handheld, so don't take it as a final assessment what such a lens is capable of.
It should be just some indication. The photo is unprocessed, just resized.
I use the 58mm Rokkor on my X-E1 with a Metabones Speed Booster which gives an approx 61mm angle of view. Out of curiosity I did take a quick shot with that combo to compare against the new Nikon lens and the results are not massively different, though I still prefer the Nikon's rendering:
D600 + 58mm 1.4G at f1.4, 1/60s, ISO 2200:
X-E1 + Rokkor 58mm 1.2 + Speed Booster at f1.2, 1/60s, ISO 2500:
Nothing scientific about this, both taken handheld on a whim, but you get an idea of how they perform.
It could be the fullframe sensor, but the 58 1.4G has nicer bokeh. Look at the blinds, the Rokkor 50 1.2 has nervous bokeh while the 58 1.4 G is smoother.
