[frank]

"Nikon makes jokes":

 

http://translate.google.com.hk/translate...17&act=url

[arvydas]

IMO reviewers at dpreview or ephotozine gave more proper evaluation of this lens. If I was shooting wedings, I'd get this lens in a moment. 

 

A.

[Guest]

IMO reviewers at dpreview or ephotozine gave more proper evaluation of this lens. If I was shooting wedings, I'd get this lens in a moment. 

 

A.

 

I thought it's easy to apply blur in post?

[Rover]

If I had been shooting Nikon, at least I would've waited for the Sigma 50A. It may (or may not, of course) demolish this 58.

[JJ_SO]

I'm also looking forward to the Sigma, but between announcement and delivery Sigma has long waiting periods for their customers. What I've seen from the 58, was really great bokeh which the people who love the lens put in favor to the lack of sharpness wide open. Maybe the Sigma will bring that sharpness but pays the prize of a less pleasing bokeh. It's a question of taste and preferences, I think. I just prefer sharpness and a decent, but not necessarily outstanding bokeh. And bokeh is not only blur, photonius And even if bokeh could be added in post - why doing more steps in post than necessary?

[Brightcolours]

I'm also looking forward to the Sigma, but between announcement and delivery Sigma has long waiting periods for their customers. What I've seen from the 58, was really great bokeh which the people who love the lens put in favor to the lack of sharpness wide open. Maybe the Sigma will bring that sharpness but pays the prize of a less pleasing bokeh. It's a question of taste and preferences, I think. I just prefer sharpness and a decent, but not necessarily outstanding bokeh. And bokeh is not only blur, photonius And even if bokeh could be added in post - why doing more steps in post than necessary?

Photonius was talking about blur (the unsharpness of the 58mm f1.4) as a pun... It made me chuckle.  :lol:

[arvydas]

I thought it's easy to apply blur in post?

I don't find it unacceptably soft wide opened- look at this picture.

and it's so smooth...

[JJ_SO]

I'm really not sure if portraits do have to be sharp like a razorblade. I like that picture. But I don't consider it sharp. The eyelashes are less clear than I expect them.

It's a 16MP camera.

At 36 MP things look different in terms of sharpness, although not better. But the colors and the bokeh are superb, "smooth", like you said, arv. For half the price I'd be tempted. I got sharper pictures at 6400 ISO with D800 and the Sigma or the 85/1.4G but none of that has them creaminess.

 

Good thing is, I don't need a 50 or 58 right now and I can wait. Maybe after photokina the Sigma will become available.

[Guest]

Photonius was talking about blur (the unsharpness of the 58mm f1.4) as a pun... It made me chuckle.  :lol:

 

Indeed.

 

Anyway, Dxomark has a test too, and they give it a score of 24 or so.... ;-)

 

but anyway, one can look at the original measurments