Nikon 58mm f1.4 G -You'll either love it, or really hate it.....

[Timotis77]

So I have and am very happy with my Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART - Brilliant lens, better than all the Nikon options at 50mm IMO..

I have had my eye on a 58mm f1.4 G for a while, more out of curiosity than anything.I will compare the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART with this 58mm f1.4 G at some point, in my own fashion and time, again out of curiosity more than anything...

I've taken about 200-300 shots with the 58mm over the last few days......

So the 58mm - I will say straight off the bat, you will either love it, or really hate it -

The CON's

- High amount of CA (green version, and hard to remove in post - on DXO Photolab anyway)

- Nailing focus is an ART - My hit rate is about 60-70% and I'd say I hit focus about 90-95% with say......The Sigma 50mm ART 1.4 @ 1.4

- The lens hood - plastic and pretty lacklustre for a $2000 AU + lens

The PRO's

- Build is great, yes its plastic which I doesn’t bother me, as it saves weight (except the lens hood)

- Weight and size - Its light, much lighter and smaller than the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART

- When you do hit focus, its beautiful - But not in a Sigma ART sharp way - Almost more natural looking, not over done

- Out of focus background / bokeh - Its just different..... Smooth looking, like really smooth - And the way it goes out of focus....... Its different....

For me, I really like the lens, BUT I did my research beforehand - I read early reviews and current day reviews of the lens - Its a lens that wont suit all shooting environments or people, unlike the Nikon and Sigma 50mm - Mine and from what I read, other also get a fair bit of CA at high levels - I don’t mind this as I see it as character in form. When you view the phots, it doesn’t look 'all that sharp' - I know I’ve hit focus, but Nikon state this that sharpness isn’t the only or number one goal for this lens - So my research before hand helped me 'see through' this - I think sharpness is very nice, like I said above, its more natural looking, rather than SUPER sharp.....

I'm happy with the lens, I'm going to keep it and use it for years to come. Though, I can understand other may not like and don’t like it..

I think, you can't really like or dislike a lens, till you've tried it for yourself - We all see and interpret things differently. One can read charts and reviews, but...... You still need to try it yourself.....

 

[Richard Frederick]

This is my go-to lens for portraits and people pictures in general - when mounted on my D500.

 

[Oregon Dawg]

The 58 is the most expensive lens I own (by a lot), and I use it on a D750. I upgraded almost on a whim from a 50mm 1.8G that I already liked. The rendering of the 58 is very pleasant to my eyes, and I usually shoot from f/1.4 to f/2.8. From f/5.6 onward it behaves like any other standard 50mm, plenty sharp enough. You don't buy this lens to shoot at f/8.

I need to try it on my D7500, but I'm a 50mm guy, so it stays glued to the D750 80% of the time, maybe most all the time honestly. I have a 28mm 1.8G for when I want something wider, and I also really like that lens as well. The 28 and 58 are all I have in FX.

There was (for me) a learning curve with the 58, and it required some autofocus fine-tune to get the autofocus solid at f/1.4.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

This is my go-to lens for portraits and people pictures in general - when mounted on my D500.

And that's exactly what I would be using it for also... people photos on a cropped sensor cam (either my D500 or D7500). I rented this lens once for a weekend... got these results:

For headshots and waist-high portraits... great lens... BUT... do not shoot this lens wide-open (F1.4). You will be dissatified with the results on 2 levels.

1. Not a tack sharp lens wide open, with resolution being down slightly.

2. The extremely shallow depth of field on this lens wide-open is really apparent... eyes will be in focus... nose and ears will be out. That does NOT hack it for me. This is pretty much true on my 85 F1.8 and especially on my 105 F1.4.

I don't recommend shooting any one of those primes listed above 'wide-open'... unless you have a distance 12 feet plus on the 58... 15 feet plus on the 85... and 20 feet plus on the 105. Maintaining those distances mentioned should render you sharp subjects wide open while providing exceptional subject isolation.

Another lens to shoot people with, with amazing results... the 200-500 ED/VR. I would recommend 40-50 feet plus at 500mm... wide open at F5.6. That's pretty far from your subject no doubt.


Riannon at the Select Models Riverside shoot.

 

[Timotis77]

The 58 is the most expensive lens I own (by a lot), and I use it on a D750. I upgraded almost on a whim from a 50mm 1.8G that I already liked. The rendering of the 58 is very pleasant to my eyes, and I usually shoot from f/1.4 to f/2.8. From f/5.6 onward it behaves like any other standard 50mm, plenty sharp enough. You don't buy this lens to shoot at f/8.

I need to try it on my D7500, but I'm a 50mm guy, so it stays glued to the D750 80% of the time, maybe most all the time honestly. I have a 28mm 1.8G for when I want something wider, and I also really like that lens as well. The 28 and 58 are all I have in FX.

There was (for me) a learning curve with the 58, and it required some autofocus fine-tune to get the autofocus solid at f/1.4.

So far I've had no need to fine tune, havent totally confirmed this yet, but from early stages, looks like its ok.....

I've used it on my D850 and D810 so far, Its seems to have slightly less CA on my D850

The rendering is very pleasant, thats for sure......










Note - the High amount of CA

 

[Timotis77]

This is my go-to lens for portraits and people pictures in general - when mounted on my D500.

And that's exactly what I would be using it for also... people photos on a cropped sensor cam (either my D500 or D7500). I rented this lens once for a weekend... got these results:

For headshots and waist-high portraits... great lens... BUT... do not shoot this lens wide-open (F1.4). You will be dissatified with the results on 2 levels.

1. Not a tack sharp lens wide open, with resolution being down slightly.

2. The extremely shallow depth of field on this lens wide-open is really apparent... eyes will be in focus... nose and ears will be out. That does NOT hack it for me. This is pretty much true on my 85 F1.8 and especially on my 105 F1.4.

I don't recommend shooting any one of those primes listed above 'wide-open'... unless you have a distance 12 feet plus on the 58... 15 feet plus on the 85... and 20 feet plus on the 105. Maintaining those distances mentioned should render you sharp subjects wide open while providing exceptional subject isolation.

Another lens to shoot people with, with amazing results... the 200-500 ED/VR. I would recommend 40-50 feet plus at 500mm... wide open at F5.6. That's pretty far from your subject no doubt.

The 58 is a great lens, I actually bought it with the intention to shoot it mostly wide open at 1.4.....

I have a Sigma 105mm 1.4 that I think competes well with this lens for out of fous background and subject isloation (Bokeh master) . Though the Sigma 105mm is SO sharp, it almost takes away from the look....

The 58 is just right....... minu the CA - But I can live with that

Its a keeper for sure.....



Unedited, other than resized and cropped



Edited

 

[GarysInSoCal]

This is my go-to lens for portraits and people pictures in general - when mounted on my D500.

And that's exactly what I would be using it for also... people photos on a cropped sensor cam (either my D500 or D7500). I rented this lens once for a weekend... got these results:

For headshots and waist-high portraits... great lens... BUT... do not shoot this lens wide-open (F1.4). You will be dissatified with the results on 2 levels.

1. Not a tack sharp lens wide open, with resolution being down slightly.

2. The extremely shallow depth of field on this lens wide-open is really apparent... eyes will be in focus... nose and ears will be out. That does NOT hack it for me. This is pretty much true on my 85 F1.8 and especially on my 105 F1.4.

I don't recommend shooting any one of those primes listed above 'wide-open'... unless you have a distance 12 feet plus on the 58... 15 feet plus on the 85... and 20 feet plus on the 105. Maintaining those distances mentioned should render you sharp subjects wide open while providing exceptional subject isolation.

Another lens to shoot people with, with amazing results... the 200-500 ED/VR. I would recommend 40-50 feet plus at 500mm... wide open at F5.6. That's pretty far from your subject no doubt.

The 58 is a great lens, I actually bought it with the intention to shoot it mostly wide open at 1.4.....

I have a Sigma 105mm 1.4 that I think competes well with this lens for out of fous background and subject isloation (Bokeh master) . Though the Sigma 105mm is SO sharp, it almost takes away from the look....

The 58 is just right....... minu the CA - But I can live with that

Its a keeper for sure.....

Unedited, other than resized and cropped

This doggy pic is the perfect example of what I'm talkin about for 'extremely shallow depth of field'. The nose and bottom teeth are pretty sharp and somewhat in focus... the eye... definitely not! For me... it's all about total face sharpness.




Laura in windowlight!

 

[Timotis77]

This is my go-to lens for portraits and people pictures in general - when mounted on my D500.

And that's exactly what I would be using it for also... people photos on a cropped sensor cam (either my D500 or D7500). I rented this lens once for a weekend... got these results:

For headshots and waist-high portraits... great lens... BUT... do not shoot this lens wide-open (F1.4). You will be dissatified with the results on 2 levels.

1. Not a tack sharp lens wide open, with resolution being down slightly.

2. The extremely shallow depth of field on this lens wide-open is really apparent... eyes will be in focus... nose and ears will be out. That does NOT hack it for me. This is pretty much true on my 85 F1.8 and especially on my 105 F1.4.

I don't recommend shooting any one of those primes listed above 'wide-open'... unless you have a distance 12 feet plus on the 58... 15 feet plus on the 85... and 20 feet plus on the 105. Maintaining those distances mentioned should render you sharp subjects wide open while providing exceptional subject isolation.

Another lens to shoot people with, with amazing results... the 200-500 ED/VR. I would recommend 40-50 feet plus at 500mm... wide open at F5.6. That's pretty far from your subject no doubt.

The 58 is a great lens, I actually bought it with the intention to shoot it mostly wide open at 1.4.....

I have a Sigma 105mm 1.4 that I think competes well with this lens for out of fous background and subject isloation (Bokeh master) . Though the Sigma 105mm is SO sharp, it almost takes away from the look....

The 58 is just right....... minu the CA - But I can live with that

Its a keeper for sure.....

Unedited, other than resized and cropped

This doggy pic is the perfect example of what I'm talkin about for 'extremely shallow depth of field'. The nose and bottom teeth are pretty sharp and somewhat in focus... the eye... definitely not! For me... it's all about total face sharpness.


Laura in windowlight!

Yes, a prime example indeed even at 2-2.8 still have to make sure whether eyes and all features are in focus...

It's definitely a special lens, it's still nice shooting around 2.8 and up but it becomes a little like any other lens in my opinion....

Least the full body shot here you posted is in full sharp focus

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

I haven't really thought about this one. It doesn't do nearly as well as the AI or AI-S 58/1.2 in the one area I want the AI version for in the first place: night shooting points of light and keeping those points as points. At least not in any samples I have seen.

Personally I think Nikon crippled the new one deliberately v the old one because they were going to do a much better one for the Z line. And, that makes sense if we think about it.

And, the new 58/1.4 new is half the price, at least, of the old 58/1.2 used. So, that's a plus.

Since I already have an AI 58/1.2 I haven't considered the new one. I also have never seen an A/B comparison of the two. I suspect those who have the old one are also not really interested in the new one.

Maybe next Christmas I will rent a new 58 and shoot it against the old one. Big light displays would be perfect for the comparison. That'd be wide open, of course. I can't do anything else with mine, as it lacks aperture blades. Mine was a salvage unit from an old MRI and they yanked the aperture blades so it would always be wide open. But I got it for 1/3 the usual used price and I wanted it for wide open, so that was a deal.

Stan

 

[dave gaines]

Hi,

... It doesn't do nearly as well as the AI or AI-S 58/1.2 in the one area I want the AI version for in the first place: night shooting points of light and keeping those points as points. At least not in any samples I have seen.

There's not much room for comparison between the AI-S 58/1.2 and the newer 58/1/4. Yes, that's what both 58 mm Noct lenses are supposed to be good at - points of light at night.

Personally I think Nikon crippled the new one deliberately v the old one because they were going to do a much better one for the Z line. And, that makes sense if we think about it.

That's like saying Nikon dummied down the lens so it wouldn't sell well. That's not a sound business move. I doubt if that's true.

And, the new 58/1.4 new is half the price, at least, of the old 58/1.2 used. So, that's a plus.

If you read Ken Rockwell's review of the 58/1.2 you'll see the history of this lens. The price skyrocketed after Nikon stopped making it because there weren't going to be any more of them made.

Since I already have an AI 58/1.2 I haven't considered the new one. ...

If you have the 58/1.2 there's no reason to buy the newer 58 mm f/1.4. But I would not buy a lens that's locked at f/1.2.

...

Stan

I hope I haven't quoted you out of context. I only cut the quote down to highlight the points you were making.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

No, you didn't get out of context, so that's all good.

My point is Nikon wasn't going to go to the lengths to make a new AF version of the F mount Noct and then have it be seen as lower cost version of the Z Noct. That is just common business sense. So, the new F mount 58 isn't a Noct. They appear to have left just a little bit out of the design.

I, too, thought hard about the old lens being locked wide open. But I would actually wind up using that way most of the time. And I have other choices to stop down. And the price tag of the now restricted lens was too good to pass up.

Others must have thought as I did as the recycle company had dozens of lenses and they sold very quickly.

Stan

 

[anotherMike]

I don't think Nikon crippled the 58 intentionally at all. The lens was a pet project of a very senior designer (Haruo Sato) and he was likely working on it long before the final specifications of the Z mount were even finalized.

 

[Sukuwea Enikkusu]

It is my main lens, I shoot mostly people. Check out my flickr if you are curious how it behaves with off-camera-flash.

Loading…

www.flickr.com

People say it is overpriced, but it is the same price as the other 1.4g lenses. Sure it looks expensive if you compare it with a nifty fifty, but it isn't a nifty fifty.

CA can be horrible, ruined some shots of mine. You just need to learn to work around that, it will be very rewarding.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

It is my main lens, I shoot mostly people. Check out my flickr if you are curious how it behaves with off-camera-flash.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/149651541@N04/

People say it is overpriced, but it is the same price as the other 1.4g lenses. Sure it looks expensive if you compare it with a nifty fifty, but it isn't a nifty fifty.

CA can be horrible, ruined some shots of mine. You just need to learn to work around that, it will be very rewarding.

Great images at the Flickr link...

That's why I'm such a fan of a potential 70mm F1.4. No CA... better subject isolation... better bokeh... and probably lower price.

A few off camera flash images here also: http://www.viewbug.com/member/garyabigt

 

[Timotis77]

Nice pictures both of you......

I don't shoot with a flash, actually have only ever shoot with one about 4 years ago - tend to use natural light only these days..

Again, great shots guys....

 

[Dibyendu Majumdar]

When the Z series was announced this was the first lens I bought - in addition to Z6 - because I was afraid it would be discontinued.

Normally lenses are designed using optimization algorithms in software. But this approach can only aim to reduce aberrations at an image plane, whereas Mr Sato was trying to achieve a certain quality in the images. How do you design such a lens? By trial and error? I think it took many years of effort to design this lens, because it was about creating certain aberrations to achieve certain image quality.

It is hard to judge this lens because it is hard to quantify its qualities. What is bokeh for instance? To many people it seems that blurring all details in the background is bokeh. But this doesn't seem to be the view taken by Mr Sato. His view of bokeh seems to be to retain background info but have a gradual softening of the details without bad artifacts. It is easiest to demonstrate the difference in examples of closeups that compare the Z lenses with this lens.

 

[anotherMike]

Sato of course used design software; it's a mistake to think that software only produces sharp results at the image plane. He did mention, as I'm sure you're aware since I think you've read the interviews, that he used a lot of Nikons then new "Optia" simulation system (many other manufacturers have similar tools) where he could "see" the design in terms of the transition behavior he wanted. There was no magic pixie dust with this lens - it was just designed with a different end goal, but still designed in the same manner (same tools, different design criteria) as other lenses.

 

[Dibyendu Majumdar]

Sato of course used design software; it's a mistake to think that software only produces sharp results at the image plane. He did mention, as I'm sure you're aware since I think you've read the interviews, that he used a lot of Nikons then new "Optia" simulation system (many other manufacturers have similar tools) where he could "see" the design in terms of the transition behavior he wanted. There was no magic pixie dust with this lens - it was just designed with a different end goal, but still designed in the same manner (same tools, different design criteria) as other lenses.

We don't really know that Optia can simulate the screen depiction. If that was the case arguably you could just do it in software, no need for a lens of this type. I do not think there is any software (yet) that can simulate what the scene would look like , for the same reason, that it would make the lens design for that goal redundant.

I am told that Nikon uses internally developed software for lens design, which does have the ability to let the designers simulate aberrations, but not sure how sophisticated that is.

p.s. I should add that even with conventional software an experienced lens designer would know what effect an aberration would produce ... but it is not possible even for an experienced designer (I would think) to generate the design without real life testing.

 

[Dibyendu Majumdar]

Link to article about OPTIA

Loading…

www.nikon.com

I am afraid though it is now become marketing stuff - as the design of Z lenses is 'conventional'. The 58mm F lens is not at all designed the same way - you can tell that Z lenses are conventional as their blur characteristics are typical of lenses from Zeiss and Sigma.

 

[anotherMike]

Quoting from the article, I think it's pretty obvious they aren't using the build prototype/evaluate/repeat process quite as much.

The 58 really isn't anything that dramatically different from a design point that couldn't have been done by someone else. This idea that there is some secret sauce or pixie dust about it needs to stop. It simply has a different approach in the weighting of aberration correction, with special attention paid to that of spherical aberration. Some folks like it, some don't. Nikon just took a chance on an approach that others could have done, but didn't.

From the article:

"The characteristics of a lens can be measured with OPTIA. In addition, since human sensibility determines whether an image is actually good or bad, it requires human eyes to actually evaluate what kind of image will be created with those characteristics. In the past, a prototype lens was physically manufactured, and used repeatedly to take images for evaluation. However, it is now possible to confirm bokeh and reproduction of textures, etc. by looking at the simulated image generated by the image simulator."