Bokeh comparison between Sigma, Otus and Nikkor 58mm

Started Apr 19, 2014 | Discussions thread
TQGroup Senior Member • Posts: 1,339
Re: Bokeh comparison between Sigma, Otus and Nikkor 58mm

jintoku wrote:

This is to all those who complain about reviews highlighting the strengths of the Sigma: If you were not technophobes, you'd come up with a way to express the attributes you are missing from those reviews you abhor in some quantitative form, or at least show side by side comparisons, instead of claiming that some snake oil attributes exist in your Nikon or Zeiss lenses that lost in those reviews.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... it is not a number on a lens test chart. By definition, art is subjective and cannot be "technically" defined in any meaningful way.

As for the snake oil... just look at the pictures posted using the Nikon and Zeiss lenses. They speak for themselves. If one likes lenses that predominantly objectively "record", then please buy them. If one prefers lenses that can subjectively "render" images, then the decision is clear.

Unfortunately, the Zeiss Otus and Nikon 58 F1.4G are not "mass market" lenses IMHO. Therefore their considerable costs of design and development cannot be amortised over many, many units. So it follows that their individual prices must be higher... like any comparable "small run" product V a "mass market" alternative. Do people really complain that a Ferrari is much, much dearer than a Mazda MX5 (Miata)? Disclosure: I own the Mazda...

Just like the venerable Nikon 58 "Noct" F1.2 lens, which now sells "used" for many times its "expensive" original price, I suspect that this Nikon 58 F1.4G will appreciate in value over time once it becomes discontinued. Why? Because as technology improves further, technically "sharper" lenses will become available and eclipse the "sharpness chart kings" of today. So any lens that solely bases its positioning on "sharpness" must decline in popularity and value due to the clamour by some (many?) to own the new "chart king".

However, lenses that can render "beautiful" images will become increasing popular as the "look" they can render will differentiate them from the rest of the "look at me I'm sharp" lens "me too" pack. Why? As a photographer, does one want to produce photographs that look like everyone else; or does one want to be distinctly different and more appealing?

No client of mine has ever bought a photograph from me solely because it was "sharp"!!!

Finally, I am still waiting to review good images from the Sigma ART 50. If this lens proves to be a better "nifty fifty" than my existing Nikon 50 F1.8G, I will buy it and sell this Nikon. However, I am increasingly confident that my investment in the Nikon 58 F1.4G will bear fruit long past my time with it!

 TQGroup's gear list:TQGroup's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +24 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow