Nikon 58mm f/1.4 G Criticisms

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 22, 2016

MisterHairy said:
I have a 50/1.4 D and it is in a different league. Better than the two 50G lenses, but much poorer than the 58. I was as surprised as you would be if you ever bothered to try one. ;-)

I would go Milvus or Sigma Art for sure over the 58 for landscape, especially for the money. I agree, the 58's rendition is nice, and the lens is a good all purpose item. Nano coating works.

OT, the humble 50 1.8 D I mentioned is sharper than the 58 for sure at f8 and every bit as sharp as the Milvus except at the extreme corners while doing an excellent ridgeline at infinity with near zero distortion and CA. Not as nice a rendition or as immune to veiling, for sure. Wide open it sucks bigtime.

50D v Milvus cropped

MisterHairy said:
--
Really beautiful photograph!

MisterHairy · Jul 22, 2016

Nope. I bought the 50D to use it at f/8 and it is most certainly not sharper than my 58. Appreciate that this is my 50 and my 58 but the difference across the frame is certainly there. Mind you, I don't generally take the type of landscape where everything is at infinity or thereabouts. My stuff generally will have nearby detail, even if just in the lower corners and there, the 58's field curvature works in its favour.

The Milvus is certainly interesting, the 85 even more so, but the 58 is genuinely a damn good lens at all apertures and distances. My own opinion of the half-of-an-iris-in-focus brigade is that they are little more than an internet meme and I rarely buy a fast lens to use it wide open but the 58 is actually one of those where it works well at that aperture.

I paid about half the price of a new Milvus for it. ;-)

MisterHairy · Jul 22, 2016

Mind you, the 50D is a damn sight more portable!

--
Really beautiful photograph!

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 22, 2016

MisterHairy said:
Nope. I bought the 50D to use it at f/8 and it is most certainly not sharper than my 58. Appreciate that this is my 50 and my 58 but the difference across the frame is certainly there. Mind you, I don't generally take the type of landscape where everything is at infinity or thereabouts. My stuff generally will have nearby detail, even if just in the lower corners and there, the 58's field curvature works in its favour.

The Milvus is certainly interesting, the 85 even more so, but the 58 is genuinely a damn good lens at all apertures and distances. My own opinion of the half-of-an-iris-in-focus brigade is that they are little more than an internet meme and I rarely buy a fast lens to use it wide open but the 58 is actually one of those where it works well at that aperture.

So many pictures chasing this silly looking extreme background blur. You got me started! :^)

MisterHairy said:
I paid about half the price of a new Milvus for it. ;-)

600? No complaint there!

MisterHairy said:
--
Really beautiful photograph!

Andre Yew · Jul 22, 2016

I've shot quite a bit with the 50/1.4D as well, and the lens does have a very interesting rendering style, distinct from the 58G. I'd never use either one seriously for landscape as neither is really sharp or has much microcontrast especially in the highlights. The highlight response of the 58G is pretty crude to say the least, and its shadow response isn't that great either.

Anyway, the 50/1.4D is low-contrast, but has a nice 3D look, which I try to preserve by not turning on any lens corrections in Lightroom. I like it a lot for people photography. The AF isn't great, but works OK most of the time.

MisterHairy · Jul 22, 2016

Andre Yew said:
I've shot quite a bit with the 50/1.4D as well, and the lens does have a very interesting rendering style, distinct from the 58G. I'd never use either one seriously for landscape as neither is really sharp or has much microcontrast especially in the highlights.

Your camera may be broken.

Marianne Oelund · Jul 22, 2016

MisterHairy said:
pluton said:

It has the diameter it has because of auto focus. The front lens shading is nice, but I'd rather have it the size of a 85/1.8 K and be manual focus. Guess they figure they can't sell manual focus lenses.

--
-KB-

Click to expand...

I don't really buy the AF argument because the 50/1.4G has similarly sized elements in the focusing group and the AF motors are much the same too, I believe. I actually find the argument that it is for ease of manual focus much more compelling although I also think that Nikon felt that size wise, the 58 had to look like it fits properly between the 35 and the 85 so built it up to match the rest of the family.

As you can verify by these equalized-scale figures from imaging.nikon.com, the barrel diameters are proportional to the front element sizes. If anything, the 58G is slightly - perhaps 0.5% - narrower proportionally:

58G on left, to scale of 50/1.4G on right

The only over-scale dimension on the 58G is actually its length.

One could argue that proportionality isn't required if the AF motors occupy the same absolute space, but then the figures also suggest that the 58G motor could sit further forward, where it will need to clear larger elements.

--
Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

Art Jacks · Jul 22, 2016

I am pleased that this lens is now being appreciated by a seemly growing number of owners, posting positive comments here during my getting on for 2 years of ownership has led to responses suggesting I should have my head examined for spending so much on such a poor performer according to the review sites. Along with others I have posted examples with similar responses that just made me give up trying to show what the lens can do, I continue to use the lens on a daily basis, using f1.4 or f8 as appropriate for the subject matter, I find it a very versatile lens that gives me many options of how I want an image recorded.

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 22, 2016

Andre Yew said:
I've shot quite a bit with the 50/1.4D as well, and the lens does have a very interesting rendering style, distinct from the 58G. I'd never use either one seriously for landscape as neither is really sharp or has much microcontrast especially in the highlights. The highlight response of the 58G is pretty crude to say the least, and its shadow response isn't that great either.

Anyway, the 50/1.4D is low-contrast, but has a nice 3D look, which I try to preserve by not turning on any lens corrections in Lightroom. I like it a lot for people photography. The AF isn't great, but works OK most of the time.

One of the stranger posts I've seen in a while, even for this forum :^)

58 1.4 v Otus 55

Cameralabs

Andre Yew · Jul 22, 2016

MisterHairy said:
Your camera may be broken.

Since you seem to be pretty good at diagnosing things via ESP, I hope you can tell me what's wrong with my car too!

Compare these full-sized JPEGs I shot on a D810 with the 58G vs. the 24PC-E. The microcontrast, especially in the highlights, of the 58G is just plain bad.

58G at f/8:

Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com

24 PC-E at f/8:

Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com

Both were shot on the same camera body (D810) in the same afternoon under similar light and environment because I was curious about the 58's performance for landscape. 58G is basically not comparable with the 24's IQ (which is better than many would have you believe) for landscape.

I like it for people work, but obviously classical landscape is not its forte. Same deal with the 50/1.4D. If you look on my Flickr below, you'll see plenty of people shots done with the 50D as well as the 58G.

Andre Yew · Jul 22, 2016

I'm not sure what your point is. I own both the 55 Otus and the 58G, so I know the difference between the two.

Marianne Oelund · Jul 22, 2016

Reilly Diefenbach said:
One of the stranger posts I've seen in a while, even for this forum :^)

58 1.4 v Otus 55

I would subtitle this, "Flat, diffuse, shadowless lighting versus strong side lighting with deep shadows." You can see the Otus is pulling a bit more detail (although the lighting is also helping this), but any other differences in lens character are completely masked.

--
Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

MisterHairy · Jul 22, 2016

I am one of the few who love the 24 PC-E. Really love it but my 58 is doing better than you are suggesting. It's late but I'll try to knock up an example for you tomorrow.

You may relish the available separation of the last couple of bits of overexposure but that's not my style. Hence my use of the word "favourite" as its a personal thing.

--
Really beautiful photograph!

Tanari · Jul 22, 2016

What should be compared here? Did you even notice that the lightning in the pictures is totally different?

And the 58mm is not build for serious landscape work. Just my 2 cents ..

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 22, 2016

Marianne Oelund said:
Reilly Diefenbach said:

One of the stranger posts I've seen in a while, even for this forum :^)

58 1.4 v Otus 55

Click to expand...

I would subtitle this, "Flat, diffuse, shadowless lighting versus strong side lighting with deep shadows." You can see the Otus is pulling a bit more detail (although the lighting is also helping this), but any other differences in lens character are completely masked.

Heh heh, the Otus is on the left. I don't see either lens "pulling in" any more detail. The amount of resolution is exactly the same, showing the same number of visible stairstep pixels on both lenses, or indeed on any other 50mm lens in the center at f8.

Rendition et al is worth arguing about, true.

Reilly Diefenbach · Jul 22, 2016

Tanari said:
What should be compared here? Did you even notice that the lightning in the pictures is totally different?

The point of the comparison being that the resolution via the clearly visible pixels is the same.

Tanari said:
And the 58mm is not build for serious landscape work. Just my 2 cents ..

I would say to the contrary, any 50mm prime stopped down to f8 does a perfectly acceptable landscape.

Here is the full size Camerlabs shot. Perhaps you'd care to point out some of the hideous flaws which render this 58mm lens not for serious landscape use.

Tanari · Jul 23, 2016

Reilly Diefenbach said:
Tanari said:

What should be compared here? Did you even notice that the lightning in the pictures is totally different?

Click to expand...

The point of the comparison being that the resolution via the clearly visible pixels is the same.

Ok, so you really compare photos with different lightning. Further discussion is pointless as you seem to lack even basic knowledge in photography. Maybe you should buy a book or 2?

Reilly Diefenbach said:
Reilly Diefenbach said:

And the 58mm is not build for serious landscape work. Just my 2 cents ..

Click to expand...

I would say to the contrary, any 50mm prime stopped down to f8 does a perfectly acceptable landscape.

Here is the full size Camerlabs shot. Perhaps you'd care to point out some of the hideous flaws which render this 58mm lens not for serious landscape use.

Ah, Camera Labs. Best ressource for the pro. Siemens-Star Photographer!

"By focusing not only on the sharpness and high MTF values achieved with precise focus, but also placing emphasis on the way the image blurs gradually from in-focus portions to out-of-focus portions, realistic three-dimensional images can be achieved. Such images are truly good images. This design concept resulted in a unique three-dimensional effect that achieves natural blur characteristics. Naturally, I hope that it will be used for landscapes, but certainly for portraits and photos of objects as well. I hope that this lens will be used to capture precious portraits of families, children, and other loved ones, and that those portraits will then be given to portrait subjects."

Clearly the best choice for landscape!

TSWD · Jul 23, 2016

Andre

I just looked at the two photos you linked to and enjoyed them both. The 24mm one in particular was both strong technically and captured my attention artistically. Thank you for sharing them.

In the 58mm shot I liked the way the rushing waves were rendered and the gradual transition to out of focus in the background. The poor highlight micro contrast you refer to - do you mean the blocked highlight on the rock? I have noticed some of my lenses block up highlights earlier than others (16-35mm Vs 24mm f1.4G for example). I wonder if the 58mm is another that clips earlier.

MisterHairy · Jul 23, 2016

The lens won't clip; the sensor clips and what drives that is the way that the lens compresses or transmits the contrast in the scene. The 58 currently out-performs modern sensors so that if one wishes to retain shadow detail, one must sacrifice highlight detail or vice versa. As sensors improve, I think that the 58 will begin to be allowed to shine and will be recognised as the remarkable optic that it is. Contrary to my original expectation.

Nexu1 · Jul 23, 2016

Nikon 58mm: 72mm front, 385 grams

Sigma 50mm Art: 77mm front, 815 grams

This seems the first I've seen anyone complain about the size of the 58. IMO there's nothing to complain about.

Nikon 58mm f/1.4 G Criticisms

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts