1.4 / 58 hast just been tested on Lenstip

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,196
Like?
Nonsense....
In reply to Stacey_K, 6 months ago

Stacey_K wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

You are correct that I don't know why they do it (I have made assumptions) but do it they do...

My guess would be they feel their "base" are canon shooters that delight in any negative conclusion they post on non-canon products.

This is what they conclude about the (much sharper) Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM:

"The Canon EF 50 mm f/1.2L USM is a new, expensive lens which belongs to the high-end L series. In the case of such devices I should have had problems with finding anything which could be put into the cons section. Here I didn’t have such problems – the lens had plenty of slip-ups during the test, in some categories losing to devices over ten times cheaper…"

It seems you two are biassed, not Lenstip.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,523Gear list
Like?
Re: Nonsense....
In reply to brightcolours, 6 months ago

brightcolours wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

You are correct that I don't know why they do it (I have made assumptions) but do it they do...

My guess would be they feel their "base" are canon shooters that delight in any negative conclusion they post on non-canon products.

This is what they conclude about the (much sharper) Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM:

"The Canon EF 50 mm f/1.2L USM is a new, expensive lens which belongs to the high-end L series. In the case of such devices I should have had problems with finding anything which could be put into the cons section. Here I didn’t have such problems – the lens had plenty of slip-ups during the test, in some categories losing to devices over ten times cheaper…"

It seems you two are biassed, not Lenstip.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

I don't think they are biased against nikon, they are sometimes biased against lenses that don't meet with their test chart based criteria (which has value, but is a pretty simplistic view of the world). Other times they hate lenses and it's not even clear why. This happens across brands.

If you mean that I'm biased against taking Lenstip seriously because of the bombast in conclusions, you are entirely right.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,196
Like?
Re: Nonsense....
In reply to sgoldswo, 6 months ago

sgoldswo wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

You are correct that I don't know why they do it (I have made assumptions) but do it they do...

My guess would be they feel their "base" are canon shooters that delight in any negative conclusion they post on non-canon products.

This is what they conclude about the (much sharper) Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM:

"The Canon EF 50 mm f/1.2L USM is a new, expensive lens which belongs to the high-end L series. In the case of such devices I should have had problems with finding anything which could be put into the cons section. Here I didn’t have such problems – the lens had plenty of slip-ups during the test, in some categories losing to devices over ten times cheaper…"

It seems you two are biassed, not Lenstip.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

I don't think they are biased against nikon, they are sometimes biased against lenses that don't meet with their test chart based criteria (which has value, but is a pretty simplistic view of the world). Other times they hate lenses and it's not even clear why. This happens across brands.

Yes, they only look at the measurements and less at the applications of a lens. That is true. Photozone does the same, lately to a lesser extent.

For big aperture non-tele lenses, it is less important on how the border performance is. Because the subject usually is not in the border, and how sharp the rest is is of little importance with shallow DOF. And for macro lenses, they do not get tested at macro distances due to the sizes of the testing targets.

One has to look at the reviews for what they have tested, and make up your own final conclusions taking your own interests into consideration.

If you mean that I'm biased against taking Lenstip seriously because of the bombast in conclusions, you are entirely right.

At times I also ignore those comments, but still value some/most of their measurements as informative.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,523Gear list
Like?
Re: Nonsense....
In reply to brightcolours, 6 months ago

brightcolours wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

You are correct that I don't know why they do it (I have made assumptions) but do it they do...

My guess would be they feel their "base" are canon shooters that delight in any negative conclusion they post on non-canon products.

This is what they conclude about the (much sharper) Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM:

"The Canon EF 50 mm f/1.2L USM is a new, expensive lens which belongs to the high-end L series. In the case of such devices I should have had problems with finding anything which could be put into the cons section. Here I didn’t have such problems – the lens had plenty of slip-ups during the test, in some categories losing to devices over ten times cheaper…"

It seems you two are biassed, not Lenstip.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

I don't think they are biased against nikon, they are sometimes biased against lenses that don't meet with their test chart based criteria (which has value, but is a pretty simplistic view of the world). Other times they hate lenses and it's not even clear why. This happens across brands.

Yes, they only look at the measurements and less at the applications of a lens. That is true. Photozone does the same, lately to a lesser extent.

For big aperture non-tele lenses, it is less important on how the border performance is. Because the subject usually is not in the border, and how sharp the rest is is of little importance with shallow DOF. And for macro lenses, they do not get tested at macro distances due to the sizes of the testing targets.

One has to look at the reviews for what they have tested, and make up your own final conclusions taking your own interests into consideration.

If you mean that I'm biased against taking Lenstip seriously because of the bombast in conclusions, you are entirely right.

At times I also ignore those comments, but still value some/most of their measurements as informative.

Agreed - the tests have value, just as the tests published by the likes of DXO have value. In fact the commentary on the test results is actually useful in that it has developed my own understanding over time. I just don't get the "this lens is rubbish because another lens has sharper corners" style of some conclusions. It's a bit trashy for a site which otherwise is intellectual in its approach.

A lens is a lens - I might consider a modern portrait lens too sharp, or too clinical, but I can make my own mind up on that.

I do find it a bit concerning that we seem to have ended up with a sharpness/contrast race with respect to lenses to mirror the megapixel race in cameras and these kind of bombastic comments only fuel that sort of thing. Before we know it all lenses will render the same and photography will be a poorer place for that.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gabriel foto
Forum MemberPosts: 57Gear list
Like?
Re: 1.4 / 58 hast just been tested on Lenstip
In reply to Patrick McMahon, 6 months ago

Patrick McMahon wrote:

fotobert wrote:

Don't read if you have already bought one.

Uh-oh... should I return it?

Cause I JUST LOVE IT!

Thank God for AF

Thanks for the photo!

I read the test at LensTip, and glanced through the comments, looking for a few things. I am no optics expert, I don't own the lens and will likely never buy one, I may be mistaken on all points but these are my thoughts, for what they may be worth:

Regarding LensTip:

I have come to regard this an entirely trustworthy site, brave, fair and unbiased. But, just like all others, it does not test for every aspect of lens performance.

Centre Sharpness:

See photo above at full resolution, at f/1,4. Looks very good to me.

Off-centre Sharpness:

I have seen other examples with the main subject a little off-centre, like in 'rule-of-thirds' compositions, which have looked fine as well. The resolution charts I've seen have been unimpressive, though. Why? Could it be

Field Curvature:

I guess Photozone is the only site which regularly tests for this effect but they haven't come around to the 58mm Nikkor yet. In this test, LensTip does not test for field curvature. Nobody in this thread has commented on that, either.

Still, the resolution chart in LensTip's review (and others) could well indicate a good deal of field curvature, couldn't it? Corner resolution rising exponentially towards a stopped-down aperture where the corners come into resolution because the depth of field includes the whole picture.

Could this be the explanation for poor off-centre sharpness? Perhaps. I guess some of you owners will know.

Shape of OOF lights:

At the bottom of page 5 and the bottom of page 7 of the review I found two illustrations which caught my interest. These show oof light sources in front of, and behind the focal plane. Strangely, these do NOT have any bright edges, like many lenses do. They are NOT evenly lit, like a plate painted in one and the same colour. Instead, they are slightly brighter in the middle, fading towards the edges.

In the test, this is perceived as an optical fault, and for example the Otus is shown beside the Nikkor, as an example of how it should be.

But me, I am not sure. I think this could in fact be part of the reason for the absolutely stunning

Bokeh:

Many of you have mentioned the 58mm bokeh but, maybe not with enough emphasis?

I may be wrong here, but I have rarely, if ever, seen such lovely bokeh in a normal lens for the 24*36mm format. The 58mm at f/1,4 or f/2, in the examples I have seen, looks like my old Rollei or Hasselblad at f/4 or so. Absolutely sweet and, to my eye, unrivalled in a 50-58mm lens.

The Noct was slightly similar, from examples I've seen: Beautiful bokeh, compared to the more odrinary 50mm f/1,2 Nikkors.

To Nikon:

Maybe your intention was to make a lens with the capacity to produce lovely pictures - at the cost of it not measuring very well?

Did you in fact know on beforehand it would be questioned like this? A brave move in such case, perhaps a little too brave...

Too difficult to figure out for many of your customers. Obvious, perhaps, to only a few professionals, fashion shooters, wedding photographers, portrait photographers? - In other words, professionals who do not read test charts, do not pixel-peep, who judge photos from prints, and from their pictorial qualities?

In other words, customers rather unlike people on forums such as this one.

Just a thought.

Gabriel

http://nikonsystem.blogspot.se/

 gabriel foto's gear list:gabriel foto's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D5100 Nikon D600 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,132Gear list
Like?
Re: 1.4 / 58 hast just been tested on Lenstip
In reply to gabriel foto, 6 months ago

gabriel foto wrote:

.... who do not read test charts, do not pixel-peep, who judge photos from prints, and from their pictorial qualities?

Like... a photographer?

In other words, customers rather unlike people on forums such as this one.

lol

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JakeB
Contributing MemberPosts: 763Gear list
Like?
Re: list of the other reviews - all of them tell more or less the same:
In reply to benjaminblack, 6 months ago

benjaminblack wrote:

These forums are losing value. They're filled with envious onlookers who resent working professionals. The 58 is a tool. If you need a tool for your job, you get it, you use it. If it's unsatisfactory, you dispose of it, and get something that does the job. It's really as simple as that.

A small group of professional who use the 58 as a tool in their kit have formed communities on the web. Communities where envy and bias do not play a role. In these communities you can share your own results. Those are the results that matter. I trust the experiences of men and women who use this lens in the field, not in labs:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon58mm14g/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/224085091097753/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/103789259521094339660

If we eliminated posts from people like you who resort to ad hominems in lieu of facts, the value of internet forums in general would be much greater.

 JakeB's gear list:JakeB's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Shaun_Nyc
Senior MemberPosts: 2,264Gear list
Like?
thankyou
In reply to brightcolours, 6 months ago

brightcolours wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

benjaminblack wrote:

These forums are losing value. They're filled with envious onlookers who resent working professionals. The 58 is a tool. If you need a tool for your job, you get it, you use it. If it's unsatisfactory, you dispose of it, and get something that does the job. It's really as simple as that.

I'm a big analogy person.

I used to work as a service writer at a car dealership. Most of the good mechanics bought "snap on" tools. They are very expensive but there is a reason these guys buy them. Of course amateur mechanics buy something like craftsman tools for 15% of the cost and say these same type "that snap on 14mm wrench doesn't do anything that couldn't be done with any 14mm wrench" while not understanding the real differences. You can measure both in a lab and they seem the same. Actually you might find the cheaper tools are closer to some "exact spec" but that doesn't make them better.

I personally am not interested in buying the 58 and do feel the price is too high. But if next year Nikon has lets say a $300 rebate on it, I would be tempted. The images it produces are lovely, I can't say the same for the 50mm f1.8G or the 50mm f1.4G, both of which I have used.

There is also no good reason for its price. It doesn't contain a lot of glass, and while aspherical elements are more expensive than regular elements to manufacture, 2 small aspherical elements do not cost $1200 per lens. Nor is the build quality of a higher level.

Yes this is the problem for me, not that its just another plastic G lens w nice bokeh. 1700.00 for this level of build quality ?  I paid that price for the 35G when it was released and wasn't thrilled either. I mean honestly what does it cost to make this ? Sigma kind of drove this point home with the 35 art at 899.00 which is a better lens than the 35G and you know Sigma is obviously making profit . 1700.00 give me a break !

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Nikon D50 Nikon D3 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Patrick McMahon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,197Gear list
Like?
A Remarkable Lens
In reply to gabriel foto, 6 months ago

A great post Gabriel.

I was impressed with dpreview's conclusion on why this is not a chart lens and not a typical 50mm. I think too many people just assume it is "another fast 50mm" and lump it in to consider with others. Hearing landscape shooters lament this lens makes no sense.

Sigma, in their recent interview went a long way to indirectly explain why this lens would cost what it costs. They gave several reasons why they were able to keep costs down vs. a company like Nikon.

But here we have a unique lens that is not currently offered by another company. To many people it will not make sense to purchase it, be it too expensive or not for the subjects they shoot. I just can't get over the beautiful portraits this lens renders. I applaud Nikon for their daring release.

As for justifying one's dislike because of the build quality, I find the 58mm to be very well built as well as light, which I welcome! And I am not alone . And I own it... There is still an old school that wants the lens made of metal, I am not in this school. I want a solidly constructed lens which is light-weight. A tall order. And I got it.

There seems to be way too many naysayers that would never be in the market for this lens anyway... very strange.

 Patrick McMahon's gear list:Patrick McMahon's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Bliss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,678
Like?
I'm not surprised
In reply to fotobert, 6 months ago

When I saw the nighttime aerial sample of Tokyo in Nikon's early marketing of the lens, I thought, "Uh Oh".  For a lens that's supposed to control coma, it was rendering things like street lights in a way that clearly disqualified it for NOCT-style use in things like night or astrophotography.  A lot of coma on those lights.  You'd have been better off with the new 50/1.8.

As a portrait or movie lens, the samples suggest to me that it has a lot of potential and character.  But it isn't a NOCT replacement and shouldn't be presented as such.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pallke
Forum MemberPosts: 59Gear list
Like?
Re: OMG... Lenstip... they are fumblers without a clue.
In reply to brightcolours, 6 months ago

So you can't read between the lines, can you? Ok.

-- hide signature --

best regards
Pallke

 Pallke's gear list:Pallke's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wayoutoffocus
New MemberPosts: 24
Like?
Re: Nonsense....
In reply to sgoldswo, 6 months ago

well said.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 614Gear list
Like?
Re: I'm not surprised
In reply to Daniel Bliss, 6 months ago

In all the comparisons of coma suppression between the old Noct 1.2 and the 58/1.4, the new lens outperformed the old. So if you think the 58/1.4 has poor coma control, you wouldn't want to see a Noct 1.2 under the same conditions! The new lens outperforms the old Noct in every measurable respect.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,196
Like?
Re: I'm not surprised
In reply to thelenspainter, 6 months ago

thelenspainter wrote:

In all the comparisons of coma suppression between the old Noct 1.2 and the 58/1.4, the new lens outperformed the old. So if you think the 58/1.4 has poor coma control, you wouldn't want to see a Noct 1.2 under the same conditions! The new lens outperforms the old Noct in every measurable respect.

Except max. aperture and resolution wide open.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 614Gear list
Like?
Re: I'm not surprised
In reply to brightcolours, 6 months ago

brightcolours wrote:

Except max. aperture and resolution wide open.

Maximum relative aperture, sure; in terms of light transmission the newer lens has less vignetting so I would not be surprised to find that the overall frame illumination is higher for the new lens at 1.4 than the old at 1.2. I don't have any proof of this though.

I haven't seen any resolution comparisons (other than side-by-side casual shots) and the new lens did look to be at least as good.

I should add that I don't have a horse in this race, just enjoy discussing the various aspects

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads