Why the 3d effect on the NIKKOR 85mm 1.4G and not the 85mm 1.8G

Hugh2017 · Jul 16, 2016

Nikon Chose Me said:
The 50 1.8 is $1400 cheaper, and it'll do the same thing as the 58 1.4. I call it a clunker because it's extremely expensive, yet does nothing better than the other 50s. Does it focus closer? No it doesn't. To me it's a money pit lens. Costs a ton of money but can't do very much. Id get the 60 micro if anything, which actually is versatile.

I'm not sold on Nikons 1.4s in general. They are heavy and expensive and not noticeably different than the 1.8s, except they are better built. There isn't a magical photo you're gonna get just because it's a 1.4, even with waving that nano wand around. It's just a lens. It's the lighting and everything else that makes the photo.

You are saying If the Nikon 58 mm 1.4 cost $100, $300, or $500 no amount of money you would not buy this lens because the Nikon 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 or 60 mm is a better lens and you are saying you would not have anything to do with the lens because it is a clunker as you put it

Or are you saying the quality and performance of the 58 mm 1.4 is terrible ?

Is this a money problem or IQ quality problem

Have you personally used the 58 mm 1.4 ? Simple yes or no, right ?

Nikon Chose Me · Jul 16, 2016

I'm saying for what the lens does, it's extremely overpriced. And when it doesn't sell that well, it goes "clunk," haha. I don't need to use it to know. I can see a million sample images online and read countless reviews. It's a 58. What's there to try out? I could put one on my camera, shoot a few pix, and then wish and hope and pray that I could find a magical quality about it. Maybe even talk myself into believing it's so worth it. But why waste time?

Two feet is the minimum focus distance. I don't think that's nearly close enough. And with 58mm's that makes it harder to throw the backgrounds out of focus in some situations.

Hugh2017 · Jul 16, 2016

Nikon Chose Me said:
I'm saying for what the lens does, it's extremely overpriced. And when it doesn't sell that well, it goes "clunk," haha. I don't need to use it to know. I can see a million sample images online and read countless reviews. It's a 58. What's there to try out? I could put one on my camera, shoot a few pix, and then wish and hope and pray that I could find a magical quality about it. Maybe even talk myself into believing it's so worth it. But why waste time?

Two feet is the minimum focus distance. I don't think that's nearly close enough. And with 58mm's that makes it harder to throw the backgrounds out of focus in some situations.

Depends how you use the lens or any lens and the 58 mm is way overkill for a basic run of the mill lens. if i was hard pressed to focus closer not optimum but close up filters are a option i would not do that,but it is not impossible to accomplish the goal of just focusing closer

For my pro uses and photography is Not a hobby for me it is a great lens for what it can do. If I were not making anything off of it I would have no use for the 58 mm as a hobby lens

it is a specialty lens and it is Two stops or so faster then the 60 mm 2.8 macro so if you want shallow DOF you have it. Heck you can use the 70-300 for macro work as a poor mans macro lens if pressed

There is more glass in the 58 mm vs the 50 mm 1.4 and the 50 mm 1.4 close focus is 1.5 feet and the 58 mm is 1.9. call it one step difference

My 24-70 mm, 60 mm macro, 58 mm all have overlapping focal lengths but for certain uses only the 58 mm does great.

For video use you want all fast glass, not that video is my number one, but this would be an amazing FL to have as you lose light

Just depends what you are doing and 95% of the time I use a mono-pod or tripod which really helps give a solid performance.

Your money your photography But since you have never ever used the lens your opinion is just that, your opinion not based on any fact. As much as mine is, and trust me if the lens sucked I would have returned it or sold it by now. I have no loyalty to any camera gear or company. I need results that is it, all I care and if I am not making money with it I'd never would have bought it.

My toy camera is a Sony RX-10 ii now

pabradley · Jul 16, 2016

Still enjoying my 85 F1.8G

--
-Patrick
My Flickr Page

Patrick Bradley

Explore Patrick Bradley’s 31 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Stacey_K · Jul 16, 2016

Nikon Chose Me said:
The 50 1.8 is $1400 cheaper, and it'll do the same thing as the 58 1.4. I call it a clunker because it's extremely expensive, yet does nothing better than the other 50s.

Keep telling yourself that, quite a few people in this newsgroup proclaim this regularly.. I owned the 50mm f1.8G and it was one of the few lenses I don't miss and wish I hadn't wasted my money buying. The ONLY attribute is has is it's sharp. If you can't see any difference between the images made by the 58G and the 50 1.8G....

Stacey_K · Jul 16, 2016

Nikon Chose Me said:
I'm saying for what the lens does, it's extremely overpriced. And when it doesn't sell that well, it goes "clunk," haha. I don't need to use it to know.

You and everyone else who calls this lens a waste of money has never used it..

Nikon Chose Me said:
Two feet is the minimum focus distance. I don't think that's nearly close enough. And with 58mm's that makes it harder to throw the backgrounds out of focus in some situations.

You clearly have a lot to learn about photography...

Stacey_K · Jul 16, 2016

Matsu said:
Stacey_K said:

Matsu said:

especially not through shallow depth of field, which is the least present, and most suppressed, depth cue in normal human vision. You just do not see depth of field in normal vision: except at the extremes of near and far focus, you experience pan focus - unlimited depth of field, or IOW, the exact opposite of shallow depth - a limitation which the human visual system suppresses almost perfectly.

Click to expand...

Total nonsense. The human eye behaves EXACTLY like a fast camera lens does, especially at lower light levels when our iris is opened up. In bright sunlight, there is more DOF just like when you stop down a lens.

The reason is appears to us to be infinite DOF is or eyes/brain are constantly scanning/refocusing plus only our central vision has any real resolving power. So for us to look at lets say a landscape scene, our eyes are moving all over the area in front of us and our brain remembers what was just scanned so to us, it all looks in focus.

If you don't see DOF with your eyes, you just aren't paying attention.

--
Stacey

Click to expand...

I need to find more precise wording, sometimes it's like English is not my first language ;-) but how would we best say this? They eye does exactly what you describe, yes, it has the same limitations as any fast lens, but our brain rarely ever let's us see it that way. Not only does it automatically adjust focus to where we're looking, aiding the perception of pan focus, the eye also makes rapid quasi-involuntary scanning motions from which we assemble the visual field and track motions.

Yep, that is exactly what is happening.

Matsu said:
How can depth of field be representative of our normal experience of depth when our brain masks it almost completely? We don't see the world as a set of frames with blown out backgrounds, so it's funny to me how often we associate this quality with 3D when evaluating photographs.

Obviously true "3D" requires the use of our stereoscopic vision, i.e. viewing 2 photographs at the same time, one with each eye. When people talk about am image having 3D qualities, they are talking about subject isolation, that the subject has so much "focus contrast" from the background, it has 3D qualities to the look.

Matsu said:
But, we also don't see reality as frozen slices of time, so I get how certain affects can be interpreted as better representations of either real world experiences or physical qualities.

Many times I am trying to create an altered state of reality...

Matsu said:
However, if I were making a list of considerations/qualities to strive for in making my photographs appear to have more or less dimensionality, I would look at light/shadow & composition first, and probably default to deeper depth of field for most compositions.

There are people who strive for "realism" and the whole f64 concept of photography. I lean more towards surrealism and portraying a feeling I had at the time. People would say the below shot isn't "realism" but it does convey the feeling I get when my little dog sticks his nose in my face

--
Stacey

Nikon Chose Me · Jul 16, 2016

Stacey_K said:
Nikon Chose Me said:

I'm saying for what the lens does, it's extremely overpriced. And when it doesn't sell that well, it goes "clunk," haha. I don't need to use it to know.

Click to expand...

You and everyone else who calls this lens a waste of money has never used it..

Stacey_K said:

Two feet is the minimum focus distance. I don't think that's nearly close enough. And with 58mm's that makes it harder to throw the backgrounds out of focus in some situations.

Click to expand...

You clearly have a lot to learn about photography...

Kaelis · Jul 16, 2016

I think that as long as you didn't try the 58 yourself you can't really appreciate the pricing.

I own the 35 & 85 1.4 G and while they're way more expensive than their 1.8 counterparts, for my needs the price increase was worth it. And I owned the 1.8 versions so I'm not delusional about the differences since I used all 4 lenses side by side.

The build quality, weather sealing, 9 blades aperture, color and contrast rendering of the 1.4G are, for me, considerable advantages over the 1.8's

The 58 1.4 is in the same situation compared to the 50 1.8, it depends on your needs and your kind of work. If I didn't shoot fashion I'd keep the 35 and 85 1.8, both are well built, reliable and fantastic optically. They just lack the sweet oof transitions of the 1.4, the Nano coating and the pro-grade build quality.

Rexgig0 · Jul 16, 2016

Stacey_K said:
Stacey_K said:

(snipped)

There are people who strive for "realism" and the whole f64 concept of photography. I lean more towards surrealism and portraying a feeling I had at the time. People would say the below shot isn't "realism" but it does convey the feeling I get when my little dog sticks his nose in my face

Click to expand...

--
Stacey

Well, your surrealism and feeling certainly look very realistic to me. To be sure, I just consulted our small dog, a.k.a. "The Embryo," or, "Embry O." ;-)

Well, OK, at extremely close range, with both eyes open, I actually see a double image of Embry O. Your image, when viewed with both eyes, conveys the closeness, and the "3D" effect, without the double image. Viewing Embry O at close range, with one eye shut, to eliminate the double image, also shuts away much of the background. Your image, it seems, has become more realistic than real life.

(Actually, my wife calls our Chihuahua "Puck," but she answers to my "Embry O" just as well. As a tiny puppy, with her scant white fur and nearly-translucent skin, her internal organs were somewhat visible, therefore "The Embryo," evolved to Embry O.)

--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 16, 2016

Stacey_K said:
Stacey_K said:

But, we also don't see reality as frozen slices of time, so I get how certain affects can be interpreted as better representations of either real world experiences or physical qualities.

Click to expand...

Many times I am trying to create an altered state of reality...

Stacey_K said:

However, if I were making a list of considerations/qualities to strive for in making my photographs appear to have more or less dimensionality, I would look at light/shadow & composition first, and probably default to deeper depth of field for most compositions.

Click to expand...

There are people who strive for "realism" and the whole f64 concept of photography. I lean more towards surrealism and portraying a feeling I had at the time. People would say the below shot isn't "realism" but it does convey the feeling I get when my little dog sticks his nose in my face

--
Stacey

Now that is an altered state photo, lol!

Stacey_K · Jul 16, 2016

Nikon Chose Me said:
Nikon Chose Me said:

I've shot for a million newspapers and know that F8-and-be-there means

Click to expand...

Post some links to your work in newspapers. Pics or it didn't happen. And f you just set the camera at f8 and shoot, then a 50mm f1.8 is probably fine. But then the kit zoom would be too.

Nikon Chose Me said:
Nikon Chose Me said:

a TON more than nuanced perceptions about how dreamy a lens is because it costs the most.

Click to expand...

Yeah all of us that love this lens, after using it compared to others in this range, simply enjoy wasting money and now wish we were as smart as you...

YRUNVS · Jul 16, 2016

Nikon Chose Me said:
The 58 is a tool, no different than the 50 1.8.

True and as AnotherMike is fond of saying 'tool to task'. I have the 50 1.8G, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to many. I like the lens a lot, but do very much appreciate the 58 1.4G (If I hadn't had a very expensive month, I might be in the boat of trying to score a used one). The lens is not a good fit for you, that has been determined, but that doesn't negate qualities which others appreciate. Though there is some amount of lens snobbery that occurs (I'd say less so than in many other things, few people will run up and gawk at a 58 1.4G or appreciate it for what it is based on appearance compared to a nice handbag, car, watch, etc.) People pay a not inconsiderable amount of money for the qualities which impact the end product, the image. There was (and continues to be) a significant amount of skepticism regarding this lens, but many of those who take the plunge and purchase the lens seem tickled pink.

For someone looking for a 50mm lens that's faster than kit or zoom, and looking for little else beyond that, it's easy to recommend the 50 1.8G. If someone is particular about rendering, and not adverse to spending a premium for it then it might be possible for the 58 1.4G to find a happy home with them. If someone is looking for the last word on sharpness then the answer changes yet again. Viva la difference!

Stujomo · Jul 17, 2016

YRUNVS said:
Nikon Chose Me said:

The 58 is a tool, no different than the 50 1.8.

Click to expand...

True and as AnotherMike is fond of saying 'tool to task'. I have the 50 1.8G, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to many. I like the lens a lot, but do very much appreciate the 58 1.4G (If I hadn't had a very expensive month, I might be in the boat of trying to score a used one). The lens is not a good fit for you, that has been determined, but that doesn't negate qualities which others appreciate. Though there is some amount of lens snobbery that occurs (I'd say less so than in many other things, few people will run up and gawk at a 58 1.4G or appreciate it for what it is based on appearance compared to a nice handbag, car, watch, etc.) People pay a not inconsiderable amount of money for the qualities which impact the end product, the image. There was (and continues to be) a significant amount of skepticism regarding this lens, but many of those who take the plunge and purchase the lens seem tickled pink.

For someone looking for a 50mm lens that's faster than kit or zoom, and looking for little else beyond that, it's easy to recommend the 50 1.8G. If someone is particular about rendering, and not adverse to spending a premium for it then it might be possible for the 58 1.4G to find a happy home with them. If someone is looking for the last word on sharpness then the answer changes yet again. Viva la difference!

I'm very pleased with my 50mm f1.8g. On it's own I would say it is a good lens but considering the cheap price it's really rather excelent.

Pokemon go...

wide open full res D800 files.

--
Stuart...

http://sjmphotography.carbonmade.com/

SJM Photography

A blog for my personal photography

sjmphotography.wordpress.com

Andrea Georgia · Jul 17, 2016

Mike, what do you like so much about the rendition (or function, VC?) of the Tamron 85 1.8 over the two 85 Nikkors?

Andrea

just Tony · Jul 17, 2016

Matsu said:
especially not through shallow depth of field, which is the least present, and most suppressed, depth cue in normal human vision. You just do not see depth of field in normal vision: except at the extremes of near and far focus, you experience pan focus - unlimited depth of field, or IOW, the exact opposite of shallow depth - a limitation which the human visual system suppresses almost perfectly.

Perception is the key concept here. We are all highly skilled at ignoring the physically shallow DOF of our eyes.

Selective DOF is certainly present since a 25mm f/3 lens could never have infinite depth of field. However the brain actively suppresses the effect. Apparently in our species there is no survival advantage to not seeing clearly.

Off axis, our eyes are horrifically poor at imaging. Aberrations are rampant and the optical sensors are few. Unsurprisingly, it takes a strong conscious effort to pay any attention at all to our peripheral vision areas, while our densely concentrated on-axis area is assisted by a truly phenomenal autofocus system.

Pay attention to how your eyes respond to a photograph, a printed page, or the screen you are looking at this very second. They are much closer to being scanners than they are to cameras.

Nikon Chose Me · Jul 17, 2016

Yep it never happened. I'm actually a Shepard. It's a good living.

I'm trying to have my account deleted so hopefully it'll be gone soon. No time for this.

Stacey_K · Jul 17, 2016

Nikon Chose Me said:
Yep it never happened. I'm actually a Shepard. It's a good living.

Just what I suspected. Why not go ahead claim you are a Pulitzer prize winning photographer from NG?

Nikon Chose Me said:
I'm trying to have my account deleted so hopefully it'll be gone soon. No time for this.

From what I've seen you post so far, you won't be missed

Marianne Oelund · Jul 17, 2016

Matsu said:
Two eyes help, but can also be fooled, sometimes in ways that one eye can't, like Hidden image stereograms.

Why is this important? Because it isn't just pedantry. It exposes the lie and futility of arguing that any lens is more or less 3D. People interested in creating more realistic 3-D impression/suggestion within their 2D photos need to think about composition and light, not lenses.

I certainly agree with your primary point - and there is much, much more to be said about the wonders of human vision, especially the processing performed by our visual cortex (one would be shocked if they could see the optical issues and poor quality of the raw images collected by our retinas). I have yet to see any 2D image that conveys more than the slightest inkling of the third dimension, regardless of how others may see them.

But that said, there remain useful lens characteristics which can help the photographer to isolate their subject in an artistic way. I like to call it "isolation" and some people like the term "pop." I have no issue with using those terms as long as they're divorced from "3D."

Regarding stereograms, though, I have to take issue to some degree with your claim that they "fool" our vision. I prefer to think of a stereogram as containing cleverly encoded 3D information, designed to stimulate the processing capability of the human visual cortex to allow resolution of a 3D perception which is very much akin to real-world scenes. They do actually combine two different laterally-shifted points of view, and after all, we never have more than two views to cue us in to the precise distances of the objects in our environment.

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 17, 2016

I would totally agree with the third dimension (depth) being rendered much better with some lenses than with others. It's really not that complicated, and has nothing to do with a depth of field setting, shallow or otherwise. Next time you're at Bestbuy, have a look at the TV wall and compare the rendition of depth between one display and another. There's nothing subtle about it. It's all about contrast, both macro and micro.

The higher the contrast and the fewer the contrast-robbing internal reflections a lens can produce, the better approximation of depth it can achieve.

Sorry, everything's the same people, all lenses are different :^)

Herewith some Reilly D standout lenses with high microcontrast for excellent depth rendition:

The Nikon 85 1.4 the subject of this OP. Awesome, no question whatsoever. The 85 1.8 looks good too.

400 2.8 (wow)

300 2.8

Insert your favorite 70-200 2.8 here, I don't use 'em. Probably the Nikon f2.8.

60G Micro Poster child for nano coating.

24-70 2.8. The pros standard event lens.

Zeiss Milvus 50, Otus 55

All the new 1.8 Nikon primes.

The Nikon 24 1.4

16-85VR

The 80-400VR close in. Yessiree, it's phenomenal at short distance.

Another Mike would I'm sure throw in the 35 and 50 Sigma Arts. Haven't used either one.

Lenses with ho hum rendition and fair to poor depth:

50G, 50D sharp but blah.

24-85VR

35 1.8 DX

18-140 kit lens

35F2D

Add your own favorites/unfavorites...

Why the 3d effect on the NIKKOR 85mm 1.4G and not the 85mm 1.8G

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts