Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
TQGroup
TQGroup Senior Member • Posts: 1,839
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

HSway wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

Rick_Hunter wrote:

I am on the op's side. The 58/1.4 is indeed a joke.
So several of you say that its design has sacrificed sharpness for bokeh... BUT there are other lens manufacturers that have clearly shown that it IS possible to do a lens that's both sharp wide open and with great bokeh. So I don't buy that justification for its poor sharpness... (Jeeze, even my super-old 50/1.2 AI-S is sharper wide open than the 58!)

The OOF transitions of the 58G are more finely graduated and that forms the character of its bokeh. I think it’s a unique feature for which we don’t have the candidates to compare. I don’t say 'it is better or worse' than other sets of unique and complex combinations (including contrast, sharpness) and those with more rapid transitions. Just that it’s different. I can see it sometimes gives specific effect while another time it's not visible as the bokeh and all these relations depend much on the particular shot. In any case it seems that it’s valued by the users which again is making the lens more difficult to compare to 'those others' for them.

just to be clear, this isn't accurate as an owner of both the 58 and the 50 F1.2. If you are referring to the Sigma 50 (which I also own), it really, really doesn't have great bokeh . I would describe it as average (sometimes good, sometimes ok, sometimes terrible).

Though I don’t think these lenses are tools for bokeh orientated use in particular I don’t think that Sigma ever shows a terrible bokeh shown in the comparison to any other 50-60mm lens for the same scene and processing (58G excepted as it distances itself from the others and can make difference apparent sometimes to most). I personally have quite hard time to believe it and wouldn’t be surprised to see the opposite of it. It certainly is not Planar 50/2 or Voigtlander 58/1.4 that would show Sigma’s terrible bokeh. I have seen let’s say less than ideal bokeh from these, too, from Voigtlander here on Fx forum it seems to be quite recently. Samples at Photozone don’t look very impressive either. Also, the 50 A maintains the bokeh quality far into the periphery of the frame. This is quite rare among the lenses and the area where otherwise decent bokeh 50-60mm lens fail regularly. I guess the appreciation for the 50 A bokeh will widely develop with time.

On a more general note, I would say many folks have problem with the Sigma’s success, Nikon’s hard core users and so on, various reasons. The 58G group looks for a 'bad bokeh' with this lens that perhaps they feel is exposing the 58G weakness and to score some additional points for their purchase and earn more respect from the less impressed majority. Some others seem to look for other flaws the lens could have or might possibly have. It’s a phase that I noticed and it is normally going on plus perhaps something extra answering the very current situation with the lenses and it will move in the course of time closer to the reality. This is, btw, also some reason for the tone of the review, I think. But the OP should have resisted the exaggerations regardless and that also for the benefit of his work.

As usual; an objective, instructive, incisive and decisive commentary. What else is left to say except... well done!

 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
xtm
xtm
xtm
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow