I'm a pretty big Nikon fan, but hey hats off to the XE-1. That shot looks great for a lot less money. I think if I was an amateur that's something I would look into.
But back to the 58. I'm starting to think this is the lens that I would suggest to someone who aspires to be a pro - you know, they want one pro lens for portraits, for walk-around, for everything. I think I might suggest this one. You could build a small portrait business with this lens and still be wide enough for small group shots when you need to shoot em. the 50 1.8 or 1.4, sure that's a smart way to go, but if you want one pro lens, I like the 58
Nov 26, 2013 at 01:30 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
ohsnaphappy wrote:
I'm a pretty big Nikon fan, but hey hats off to the XE-1. That shot looks great for a lot less money. I think if I was an amateur that's something I would look into.
But back to the 58. I'm starting to think this is the lens that I would suggest to someone who aspires to be a pro - you know, they want one pro lens for portraits, for walk-around, for everything. I think I might suggest this one. You could build a small portrait business with this lens and still be wide enough for small group shots when you need to shoot em. the 50 1.8 or 1.4, sure that's a smart way to go, but if you want one pro lens, I like the 58...Show more →
On DX certainly. On FX I'd be more inclined to guide someone to the 85 f/1.4.
I've used a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 Ai-S quite extensively for several years (see my flickr site) and got a 58/1.4G a couple of weeks ago. My 58/1.4G is sharp wide open and has one distinct advantage over the Noct: Autofocus. Other than that, however, they seem to be more or less equal--at least for the kind of shots I make (I don't shoot test charts or brick walls). Here's a recent shot from Venice:
Early this morning, pulled over at the edge of a marsh and saw this black-crowned night heron. I had the Df and 58g and took this shot. A little post in LR.
ohsnaphappy wrote:
Was this like f4? That D4 sensor has always been gorgeous
f/2.5 - added info above. Look forward to utilizing this sensor for low light shooting.
I'm just trying to decide if it's worth it to continue to expand my Nikon lens list with this one, or just stick with my canon stuff and suck it up when it comes to shadow noise.
form wrote:
I'm just trying to decide if it's worth it to continue to expand my Nikon lens list with this one, or just stick with my canon stuff and suck it up when it comes to shadow noise.
I think if you use this focal length a lot, it's a no brainer. Same could be said for shooting in low light. If you shoot in the dark often, this a great lens for you. For me, it's going to be tough (fun) deciding between this and the 85 1.4G. Do I want sharpness or dreamy softness for my portraits?
ohsnaphappy wrote:
I think if you use this focal length a lot, it's a no brainer. Same could be said for shooting in low light. If you shoot in the dark often, this a great lens for you. For me, it's going to be tough (fun) deciding between this and the 85 1.4G. Do I want sharpness or dreamy softness for my portraits?
Can you not get dreamy softness and sharpness with the 85mm f1.4g? I'd say you can!
Actually I plan to get 85 f/1.4 also. 35 and 85 are my most-used focal lengths, and I have 24-35-50-85 on the Canon side. The only thing I would be missing with 24-35-58-85 would be 70-200.
Hardcore wrote:
Can you not get dreamy softness and sharpness with the 85mm f1.4g? I'd say you can!
Based on all the images I've seen from the 58 so far, it renders very differently from the 85. The 58 has a very different look. The 85 is sharp. The 58 is not. That sounds like a bad thing, because sharpness is what we're all usually looking for. But the 58 is just different. Spend a couple hours going through the shots, there's quite a few on the internets now.
form wrote:
Actually I plan to get 85 f/1.4 also. 35 and 85 are my most-used focal lengths, and I have 24-35-50-85 on the Canon side. The only thing I would be missing with 24-35-58-85 would be 70-200.
I switched from Canon too. Nikon's 24 is magical, kills Canon's 24. My favorite Canon lens was the 85 1.2L II. I don't miss it at all. Nikon's focuses faster, I think it's sharper wide open, and the keeper rate with Nikon is off the charts. The 85 1.4G is the best lens I've ever owned. Nikon's 35 seems great when I look at pics online, but everyone prefers the Sigma. I've never owned it. But I did rent Canon's 35 and I wasn't impressed. It rendered similar to their 50 1.4 IMO. But one of my best friends swears by his 35 1.4L. As for the Canon 50 1.2L, there's not much like it out there. That's a soft magical lens that you either love or hate. You definitely hate it when it misses, which it constantly did on the 5D2. When I say the new 58 looks soft, it's still much sharper than Canon's 50 1.2L. That lens was a bit of an enigma to me.
You're going to love Nikon. You'll never look back. Welcome to the world of dynamic range and accurate focus!
I've just been involved in a discussion on another forum about zooms vs primes. The usual arguments seem to centre around absolute sharpness (which is the typical pixel peeper's view) - go for the technically 'best' with the highest scoring MTF figures. My only zoom now is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 S, which I use primarily for wildlife (and a damned fine lens it is too). The reason I like primes is the fast aperture which is great for low light AF and the look they give you when shot wide open. I love my old AF 50mm f/1.4D. It's soft as soft can be from wide open up to about f/2.8 but I love the images it produces:
The rendering of the 58mm f/1.4 is absolutely sublime - it blows the doors off my 50mm f/1.4D and it's at the very top of my lens lust list. Just got to figure out how to drop £1600 on a new lens without my wife finding out, oh and find somewhere in the UK that has one.....
My other fantasy lens would be a revamped 135mm f/2 DC in a fast focusing AF-S version....
A lot of people are so fixated about charts and sharpness. I love the rendering of Nikon's new 58/1.4 and its color. Looks like a lens with a soul. Reminds me of the leica rendering. I give a rat's about whether its the absolute sharpest or not. It draws beautifully. Like they say, some lenses are made to win tests while some just make beautiful pictures. Congrats to people that purchased this lens. Its on my high-want list
Picture This! wrote:
A lot of people are so fixated about charts and sharpness. I love the rendering of Nikon's new 58/1.4 and its color. Looks like a lens with a soul. Reminds me of the leica rendering. I give a rat's about whether its the absolute sharpest or not. It draws beautifully. Like they say, some lenses are made to win tests while some just make beautiful pictures. Congrats to people that purchased this lens. Its on my high-want list
Picture This! wrote:
A lot of people are so fixated about charts and sharpness. I love the rendering of Nikon's new 58/1.4 and its color. Looks like a lens with a soul. Reminds me of the leica rendering. I give a rat's about whether its the absolute sharpest or not. It draws beautifully. Like they say, some lenses are made to win tests while some just make beautiful pictures. Congrats to people that purchased this lens. Its on my high-want list
This lens has nothing to prove. Stellar performer for sure..
