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

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions
sgoldswo
sgoldswo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

paulski66 wrote:

designdog wrote:

- the Sigma Art is a high resolution, very sharp lens with acceptable, not great bokeh. Lets just agree that the Sigma Art produces the sharpest images available in a moderately priced 50mm lens. Got that.

- the Nikon 58 is a great bokeh, transition lens with acceptable sharpness. Can we not also agree that the Nikon 58 makes the most beautiful images of people, nature, etc available in a moderately priced lens?

No.

a) $1,700 for a normal prime is not "moderately priced."

b) You're essentially asking everyone to agree that the 58 is the best lens on the market as a baseline assumption ("takes the most beautiful images of people, nature, etc"). I don't really agree with this. Does it have the better bokeh than the Sigma? Yes. Moderately. But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it is a better lens.

I didn't read it like that. I understood beautiful to mean aesthetically pleasing in this context.

To put designdog's post another way, the Sigma is a sharpness and microcontrast monster and the Nikkor is a bokeh monster. There have been lenses falling into one or more of these camps for a long time.

I have a m-mount Zeiss planar which is ludicrously sharp (I suspect it may be better than the Sigma at F5.6 though it is much weaker wide open) and a Summilux which is a bokeh monster too. They aren't "better" than each other. They are just different. A side observation would be that the Zeiss was a lot cheaper than the Leica...

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica Q Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +1 more
SereneMelancholia Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G
9

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!) Plus the plastic build, the lack of exotic glass elements and the quite simple optical formula do really collide with the ridiculously high price tag. Yes, the rendering is nice and it can be used wide open for small prints, but frankly, 1700$ for a plastic prime lens that at apertures larger than F2.8 is softer than a cheap p&s camera? No way.

While I think the artistic value of the image quality is a matter of personal preference and personal taste that is a fair enough debate, you do have some basic facts about the lens construction wrong.

The 58 f1.4 G is constructed with a magnesium alloy tube covered with impact-resistant plastic (the same as the 24, 35, and 85 mm f1.4 G's).  This construction has a history of durability in rough field use conditions.  The build quality of the Sigma Art lenses is quite high, but I would bet on the Nikkor f1.4 G's when it comes to long run durability.  It also contains two aspherical elements.  The 85 mm f1.4 G is the one with absolutely no specialty glass, but still manages to be astonishingly good nevertheless.

I usually avoid these kinds of debates as lens preference is a personal thing, but you are consistently misinforming people about basic facts in the construction of this lens in an oddly emotional way.

GVansteelant Junior Member • Posts: 34
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

thelenspainter wrote:

Thank you, yes these are excellent features offered by Sigma. I was thinking more in terms of situations where an incompatibility emerges (refer to recent problems with live view AF on D810 with Sigma lenses) that is not yet fixed. Likely it will eventually be fixed by a firmware update, but there is no guarantee of that. I think the risk of the lens ceasing to work properly on some future camera body must be weighed into the purchase decision.

This is mostly Nikon's doing (on purpose, I surmise). Via the dock, they now have a way to quickly counter this bad attitude.

 GVansteelant's gear list:GVansteelant's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon Df Nikon D850 +13 more
Rick_Hunter Senior Member • Posts: 1,021
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

SereneMelancholia 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!) Plus the plastic build, the lack of exotic glass elements and the quite simple optical formula do really collide with the ridiculously high price tag. Yes, the rendering is nice and it can be used wide open for small prints, but frankly, 1700$ for a plastic prime lens that at apertures larger than F2.8 is softer than a cheap p&s camera? No way.

While I think the artistic value of the image quality is a matter of personal preference and personal taste that is a fair enough debate, you do have some basic facts about the lens construction wrong.

The 58 f1.4 G is constructed with a magnesium alloy tube covered with impact-resistant plastic (the same as the 24, 35, and 85 mm f1.4 G's). This construction has a history of durability in rough field use conditions. The build quality of the Sigma Art lenses is quite high, but I would bet on the Nikkor f1.4 G's when it comes to long run durability. It also contains two aspherical elements. The 85 mm f1.4 G is the one with absolutely no specialty glass, but still manages to be astonishingly good nevertheless.

I usually avoid these kinds of debates as lens preference is a personal thing, but you are consistently misinforming people about basic facts in the construction of this lens in an oddly emotional way.

Blah blah blah.... oddly emotional blah blah blah... As you wish.

 Rick_Hunter's gear list:Rick_Hunter's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D600 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +11 more
MisterHairy Senior Member • Posts: 2,245
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

What sort of motors do the f/1.4 primes from Nikon use? Are they a modern design or an older one? If an older one, is anything known about the durability of that type of motor, given the wealth of data that must now be available for it?

 MisterHairy's gear list:MisterHairy's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Sony Alpha a7R III Sony a7 III Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +7 more
SereneMelancholia Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

MisterHairy wrote:

What sort of motors do the f/1.4 primes from Nikon use? Are they a modern design or an older one? If an older one, is anything known about the durability of that type of motor, given the wealth of data that must now be available for it?

As I understand it, Nikon has two types of AF-S motors, an older ring-type and a newer mini-type.  The only way to know which lens has which type is for someone to dismantle one.  The 24, 35,  and 85 f1.4 G's all have the newer mini-type so I assume the 58 does also.  I have heard anecdotally that part of the change to the newer motor was reliability, but I certainly don't have any statistics to back that up.

MisterHairy Senior Member • Posts: 2,245
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

Yes, you are correct I think. The micro motors do seem to be the "cheap" option but there doesn't seem to be much reliability data about them yet. It will be interesting to see how they hold up in the 1.4 primes if, as some have suggested, they are being highly loaded by the greater inertias. Not sure if that's the case myself as the focusing groups look to be the smaller elements.

 MisterHairy's gear list:MisterHairy's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Sony Alpha a7R III Sony a7 III Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +7 more
HSway
HSway Veteran Member • Posts: 3,161
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G
1

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.

Anthony Cheh Senior Member • Posts: 2,441
@ anotherMike

Well said, Mike.

TQGroup
TQGroup Senior Member • Posts: 1,385
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
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,526
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G
1

paulski66 wrote:

designdog wrote:

- the Sigma Art is a high resolution, very sharp lens with acceptable, not great bokeh. Lets just agree that the Sigma Art produces the sharpest images available in a moderately priced 50mm lens. Got that.

- the Nikon 58 is a great bokeh, transition lens with acceptable sharpness. Can we not also agree that the Nikon 58 makes the most beautiful images of people, nature, etc available in a moderately priced lens?

No.

a) $1,700 for a normal prime is not "moderately priced."

It's the same price range as the other new nikon f1.4 lenses like the 24, 35 and 85. And the sigma versions of these are about the same amount cheaper.I could just as easily say sigma wanting $1000 for a 3rd party 50mm lens is insane.

I consider the otus not to be moderately priced. I consider the other nikon 50's to be cheaply priced. I get you either can't or don't want to afford the 58 and complain every chance you get about it's price. Compared to the other lenses in nikon's line-up, it's not that insanely over priced IMHO

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
paulski66
paulski66 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,303
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G
1

Stacey_K wrote:

paulski66 wrote:

designdog wrote:

- the Sigma Art is a high resolution, very sharp lens with acceptable, not great bokeh. Lets just agree that the Sigma Art produces the sharpest images available in a moderately priced 50mm lens. Got that.

- the Nikon 58 is a great bokeh, transition lens with acceptable sharpness. Can we not also agree that the Nikon 58 makes the most beautiful images of people, nature, etc available in a moderately priced lens?

No.

a) $1,700 for a normal prime is not "moderately priced."

It's the same price range as the other new nikon f1.4 lenses like the 24, 35 and 85. And the sigma versions of these are about the same amount cheaper.I could just as easily say sigma wanting $1000 for a 3rd party 50mm lens is insane.

I consider the otus not to be moderately priced. I consider the other nikon 50's to be cheaply priced. I get you either can't or don't want to afford the 58 and complain every chance you get about it's price. Compared to the other lenses in nikon's line-up, it's not that insanely over priced IMHO

I didn't say it was insanely over priced. I said that, for a normal prime, $1,700 does not qualify as "moderately priced."

The 24, 35, and 85 are all expensive lenses. I would say that the Sigma is an expensive lens, too...and it comes in at $750 less than the Nikkor. Ouch.

ETA: The Otus is insanely expensive for a normal prime.

 paulski66's gear list:paulski66's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +2 more
GlobalGuyUSA Senior Member • Posts: 2,016
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G
3

paulski66 wrote: I didn't say it was insanely over priced. I said that, for a normal prime, $1,700 does not qualify as "moderately priced."

No, you should stick to your guns.

$1700 is an insane (I mean, very passionate) price -- any prime under 105mm should be $1000 or less. And the closer it is to 50mm, the cheaper it should get. The 58mm f/1.4 G is, quite simply, a $600 dollar lens.

Its a $600 retail-dollars lens, priced at $1700, which is of course Nikon's arbitrary choice & right. Its not a complex design, it has wavy optics. It can't use Nikon's own latest sensors at f/1.4, f/1.8, or f/2 really. Its not particularly special except in 2 ways (coma & bokeh), where its pretty darn special, but only one of those reasons is slightly more special than a $1,000 competitor, and those two reasons are the only reasons why its not sold as a $400 retail-dollar lens. Competitively, its a $600 lens, practically its a $1000 lens, and insanely (I mean, passionately), its a $1700 lens.

Others may place a $700 to $1100 premium value on those features to bring it to $1700, which is their right to see as quite reasonable and fair for what they wanted, as well as Nikon's right to sell it that much higher. Others may find the features invaluable and therefore the lens to be infinitely cheap.

But stick to your guns, because on a manufacturing & design basis, your instincts are right.

 GlobalGuyUSA's gear list:GlobalGuyUSA's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED +9 more
thelenspainter Senior Member • Posts: 1,894
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G
1

You've hit the nail on the head - at some level it's very difficult for anyone to be truly objective about these things because we all feel the drive to belong to a team - team Nikon in this case. It's built into the human psyche. I'm not ashamed to admit that it would make me very happy indeed to see Nikon release some really backside-kicking prime lenses in the next year or two. That said, they've done a great job with the 70-200 f4 and 80-400, and a little before that the 85 1.8G and 28 1.8G were also excellent. So it's not like they've released a series of duds or anything approaching that. But it would be great to see a lens or two that is demonstrably and clearly superior to competing offerings.

I do find myself wondering how much improvement there remains to be extracted from these optical designs, and to what extent they are going to start hitting against the wall of manufacturing tolerances and limitations of physics.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Leica TL2 Leica T 55-135mm F3.5-4.5 Leica Summilux-TL 35mm F1.4 ASPH Leica TL 18mm F2.8 +1 more
paulski66
paulski66 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,303
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

GlobalGuyUSA wrote:

paulski66 wrote: I didn't say it was insanely over priced. I said that, for a normal prime, $1,700 does not qualify as "moderately priced."

No, you should stick to your guns.

$1700 is an insane (I mean, very passionate) price -- any prime under 105mm should be $1000 or less. And the closer it is to 50mm, the cheaper it should get. The 58mm f/1.4 G is, quite simply, a $600 dollar lens.

Its a $600 retail-dollars lens, priced at $1700, which is of course Nikon's arbitrary choice & right. Its not a complex design, it has wavy optics. It can't use Nikon's own latest sensors at f/1.4, f/1.8, or f/2 really. Its not particularly special except in 2 ways (coma & bokeh), where its pretty darn special, but only one of those reasons is slightly more special than a $1,000 competitor, and those two reasons are the only reasons why its not sold as a $400 retail-dollar lens. Competitively, its a $600 lens, practically its a $1000 lens, and insanely (I mean, passionately), its a $1700 lens.

Others may place a $700 to $1100 premium value on those features to bring it to $1700, which is their right to see as quite reasonable and fair for what they wanted, as well as Nikon's right to sell it that much higher. Others may find the features invaluable and therefore the lens to be infinitely cheap.

But stick to your guns, because on a manufacturing & design basis, your instincts are right.

I have no problem sticking to my guns, and I do think the 58 1.4g is over-priced. When I hold my 70-200 f/2.8g in my hands, a very complex design with VR and a good number of large, expensive glass elements, even then I can't believe that I spent $2100 on it (got it during the rebates). The 70-200 is an expensive lens. It is not a moderately priced lens. And yet that lens is a downright steal compared to the 58mm f/1.4g.

If someone were to tell me that it costs 2/3rds as much to manufacture the 58mm f/1.4g as it does the 70-200, I would have trouble suppressing my laughter.

That said, my response to Stacy, which was accurate, was that I did not call the 58mm insanely over-priced. I said it did not qualify as a moderately-priced lens.

I would add, though, that I agree with your overall assessment re: the price of the lens.

 paulski66's gear list:paulski66's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +2 more
aut0maticdan
aut0maticdan Senior Member • Posts: 1,228
58/1.4 back-focusing?

Looks like it could be. Most evident in the focus shift test. Interested to hear how you set up the test.

 aut0maticdan's gear list:aut0maticdan's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon Df Sony Alpha a7S II Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +11 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,526
Re: 58/1.4 back-focusing?
3

aut0maticdan wrote:

Looks like it could be. Most evident in the focus shift test. Interested to hear how you set up the test.

What I find comical is he set up all these side by side comparisons and can't see in that simple focus test, the HUGE difference in bokeh between these lenses. Then on the next page he basically says the difference is so little it doesn't matter.

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 9,088
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G
11

Going to go on a rant here. Reader be warned. It won't be pretty.

I think Nikon has been too timid and perhaps a touch lacking in thinking what is desired in lenses with the high rez bodies they make. I might even say they are resting on their laurels from 5 years ago.

Look - I have shot Nikon since '77 and until the past 2 years, you'd see me at the head of the freaking fanboy pack, loudly proclaiming Nikon lens superiority. And I can get real loud and real opinionated.

I wish to hell they made the best, but the honest answer, once you strip away the BS, the fanboys who can't admit someone else can make a better lens, and get real about things and take the time necessary to fully test the competition, as I've done, Nikon really isn't "all that" any more.

It's not that what they make is bad by any means; let's be clear this is NOT a "junk versus awesome" discussion where the views are binary with nothing in between at all - just that they don't go for the stars like they used to. The 28 could have been better (and keep in mind I like this lens a lot); both 35's CERTAINLY could have and should have been better, and they've ignored key focal lengths for a while like the 20 and 105 primes. Even the 105/2.8G I consider a disappointment - it was, in the history of me shooting pretty much all of their 105mm lenses across 30+ years, the first time I thought "wow, they just missed on this one - it's good, but not fantastic, and they used to do "fantastic" at this focal length each time they released a new 105". And of course, right about when they start to slip a bit, the son takes over at Sigma and is tired of being a third tier lens manufacturer, and Zeiss for a few years has made a few serious (if MF) contenders in the world class arena. No wonder things have changed.

Now I'm going to really get controversial and anger a lot of Nikon fans, even myself. You know who is very quietly producing some extremely nice glass that often beats Nikon? It's a company who generally I feel has been lagging a touch in lens design, particularly in the wide angles and normal ranges, even though they are very well marketed and very popular a company. Yup - that would be Canon. You think the Nikon 16-35 is really a great lens? Don't go shoot that new Canon 16-40 IS - it simply just a better lens - period, end of story, no competition. And that's from a company who historically hasn't done wide angles that well. Want another one from Canon? Go back a few years - the 17 Tilt Shift - the first time from Canon that I've seen a wide angle from them with bite, microcontrast and magic. Freaking wonderful, wonderful, wonderful lens (just ask guys who shoot both systems and don't have their horses all in one camp like dan168 sometime). It meets if not slightly BEATS the 14-24 at 17mm, which trust me, ain't easy. Who makes the best 24-70 right now? Not Zeiss, and not Nikon. I love my Nikon 24-70, but it plays second fiddle to, yup, you guessed it, the Canon 24-70 L series II. And before anyone starts passionate typing to argue with me - keep in mind I do NOT like typing what I just typed. I hate Canon. I hate their arrogant fan boys who still can't admit the 5Diii got soundly beaten by the 800 series in terms of clean shadows and DR, never mind resolution. I don't like their video cameras. I hate their advertising. I hate their bodies and their UI. Can't stand shooting that stuff. But reality is reality, and while Nikon is asleep at the wheel, producing niche stuff that really doesn't mate well with a wider cross section of users, and tends to be way overpriced (58/1.4, DF - both about 500 bucks too rich), Canon is quietly making some of the nicest lenses around - and once they decide to come out with a high rez body, I bet we'll see some switchers. Hell, I may have no choice myself but to consider Canon 5 years from now, and believe me, I can't believe I'm typing that.

What's Nikon truly and really done excellently in the past few years? Not just "very good" or even "really good", but world class good? Other than the exotic 400 and 800, which I hear give the Canon super teles a serious run for the money, not one damned thing. Nothing. Sure, they have produced very good lenses - the 80-400, 70-200/4, 85/1.8G, 28/1.8G, and a pretty good lens (35/1.8G FX) and even a niche lens (the 58), but not much else that is amazing in the way the 14-24 was when it came out. Were you around when that lens came out? My head was blown off - I could not BELIEVE what they accomplished with it. And it, even today, is a lens so good it can hang with primes in the D810 era. What happened? And man, that pains me to say that. Sigma, Zeiss and Canon are making the best lenses right now in the land of the world class optics. Nikon is asleep at the wheel, bigtime. I seriously hope that changes and soon. Because I hate admitting Nikon is no longer in the top tier club for the past few years.

Rant over (and I expect a firestorm from this post.. but as I always say, I call em like I seem em, and I don't like what I'm not seeing (lens wise) from the brand)

-m

anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 9,088
Re: @ anotherMike

Thanks Anthony. I"m in a controversial mood tonight, so I better take any nice words while I can

-m

thelenspainter Senior Member • Posts: 1,894
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

Nice rant Mike I'm going to chicken out and not address much of it except to say that right now, Nikon has the best 70-200 f4 on the market. So they do still make 'em. But I agree with you that many of the latest lenses are in the 'good enough' to 'quite nice' range instead of 'incredible' or 'just the best, period'. That's what I'd like to see!

Oh and the new Canon lens is a 16-35

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Leica TL2 Leica T 55-135mm F3.5-4.5 Leica Summilux-TL 35mm F1.4 ASPH Leica TL 18mm F2.8 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads