Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 58mm f/1.4 G
#11
Thanks for the link. It's a nice comparison.

I am just surprised by the extremely bad result of the 58G in the resolution test. I have definitely seen sharper images made with this lens online - at least on 16 & 24mp cameras.  Huh
#12
It's natural comparison is to the Canon 50/1.2, not to the Nikon 50/1.4.   Same DOF wide open, same low performance, similar silly price tag.

 

Comparing it to the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is difficult...since that lens does not go to f/1.2.  To compare the data you have to up half a stop, a 50/1.4 is equivalent to a 58/1.8 in terms of DOF.  

 

I don't have a stake in either CanNikon camps nor care either way about the price of this lens, but I know there are a lot of Adamant Equivalent-DOF Dogmatics here so we do need to try to make an effort to compare this lens based on equivalency.    ^_^

#13
Sorry, again I think all this DOF comparisons, pretending to be a value to calculate with, are rather useless. All this values you get out of your iPhone DoF calculators appear to be accurate because the numbers have some commas in. In practice, nobody would see a difference. Nobody gets a lens like this because of equivalent DOF, as the bokeh is pretty much different to most other lenses and in my eyes the only reason one goes for this otherwise not breathtaking lens. At this price, one gets a 50mm Sigma and a 35 as well and both are better in terms of resolution wide open. Could not believe it, but the difference of two (2!) outstanding (!) Sigma lenses to this very "instanding" Nikkor is less than 50$  :blink:

 

So, it's baiscally the speed of f/1.4. But if I insist on "DOF not relevant as reason for decision", I need to add f/1.4 is not necessarily for all lenses the exact same speed as some have higher or lower light transmission. I noticed that with the Sigmas f/1.4 I get somewhat faster shutterspeeds because light transmission appears to be a bit higher. 

#14
I'm not sure the difference in DOF is going to be of major significance. I was perusing the Sigma 85/1.4 test on TDP once and there's an excellent rollover comparison tool. I couldn't honestly call the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.8 shots noticeable, let alone between f/1.2 and f/1.4 shots (before you ask, that comparison also included a series of samples from Canon 85/1.2L II). I always felt that f/1.2 mattered more on film where you couldn't just ramp up the ISO, and now Canon has such lenses mostly for bragging rights (like the 50mm f/1.0 back in the day).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Compa...rture.aspx

#15
I don't know if we are talking about sample variations here, but With Flow's report I see little difference between the old 50mm F1.4 and the 58mm 1.4 fully open. Contrast is also lower than the Sigma by a large margin.

     It seems we are asked to pay $1,300-1,400 extra to have a marginal improvement in edge resolution and bokeh and little focus shift for a lens that is similar in real world use to the 50mm 1.4,  it also has an uncomplicated construction . Where's the money going?  mostly in Nikon's pocket!

 

 

                   in short I think that Nikon designed this lens specifically to take us to the cleaners!  

Dave's clichés
#16
I'm sure Nikon would have designed a f/1.2 as well - if their mount would allow it, but the electrical contacts are just in the way. So, no show-off this time or in the near future. Canon can do, as brightcolours showed in another thread - but what's the point? What can one do with f/1.2 what you can't with f/1.4? Zeiss did once an anniversary Planar 85/1.2 in a wooden "Leica-style to store in a safe" box with red velevet, I believe.

 

No way I would trade in my Sigma 50 Art for any f/1.2. Instead of that I'd feel better off with a Nikon D750, as AF and High ISO are showing Canon to be slightly bit left behind. Nikon owners maybe already saw this: http://petapixel.com/2014/10/14/nikon-d7...d-monster/

 

And my wallet looks at me with the usual sweat drops on it's forehead and eyes already in panic-mode. Poor thing... :wacko:

#17
Quote:It's natural comparison is to the Canon 50/1.2, not to the Nikon 50/1.4.   Same DOF wide open, same low performance, similar silly price tag.

 

Comparing it to the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is difficult...since that lens does not go to f/1.2.  To compare the data you have to up half a stop, a 50/1.4 is equivalent to a 58/1.8 in terms of DOF.  

 

I don't have a stake in either CanNikon camps nor care either way about the price of this lens, but I know there are a lot of Adamant Equivalent-DOF Dogmatics here so we do need to try to make an effort to compare this lens based on equivalency.    ^_^
About the price, price is not about DOF. The Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM has about the same DOF, and is waaaaay cheaper. Price is (usually) mostly about the glass inside. The Canon 50mm f1.2 L has bigger elements, and on the whole more glass. The Nikkor 58mm f1.4 has small elements on the whole, and not that much glass (weighs less). That makes its more expensive price a bit... odd.
#18
Quote:I'm not sure the difference in DOF is going to be of major significance. I was perusing the Sigma 85/1.4 test on TDP once and there's an excellent rollover comparison tool. I couldn't honestly call the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.8 shots noticeable, let alone between f/1.2 and f/1.4 shots (before you ask, that comparison also included a series of samples from Canon 85/1.2L II). I always felt that f/1.2 mattered more on film where you couldn't just ramp up the ISO, and now Canon has such lenses mostly for bragging rights (like the 50mm f/1.0 back in the day).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Compa...rture.aspx
The Canon 85mm f1.2 L USM has (very) noticable DOF difference to the Sigma 85mm f1.4, even in above comparison. The Sigma 85mm f1.4 gives more or less comparable DOF results at f1.4 to the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM at f1.8.

 

Scroll down to the up close wall corner sample here, to see the difference with f1.2 to f1.8 on the 85mm f1.2, and the difference between the 85mm f1.2 at f1.2 to the Sigma 85mm f1.4 at f1.4:

http://cannonfastreviews.com/canon-85mm-...m-f1-4-ex/

 

Whether the difference is important to you as photographer, that is personal. But the difference is clear and there....

For more light, one should not bother. As most of the extra light gets lost at micro lens level anyway. Same is true for f1.4 vs f1.8, by the way.
#19
Quote:It's natural comparison is to the Canon 50/1.2, not to the Nikon 50/1.4.   Same DOF wide open, same low performance, similar silly price tag.

 

Comparing it to the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is difficult...since that lens does not go to f/1.2.  To compare the data you have to up half a stop, a 50/1.4 is equivalent to a 58/1.8 in terms of DOF.  

 

I don't have a stake in either CanNikon camps nor care either way about the price of this lens, but I know there are a lot of Adamant Equivalent-DOF Dogmatics here so we do need to try to make an effort to compare this lens based on equivalency.    ^_^
Of course, similar DOF but different FOV Wink
#20
Quote:The Canon 85mm f1.2 L USM has (very) noticable DOF difference to the Sigma 85mm f1.4, even in above comparison. The Sigma 85mm f1.4 gives more or less comparable DOF results at f1.4 to the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM at f1.8.

 

Scroll down to the up close wall corner sample here, to see the difference with f1.2 to f1.8 on the 85mm f1.2, and the difference between the 85mm f1.2 at f1.2 to the Sigma 85mm f1.4 at f1.4:

http://cannonfastreviews.com/canon-85mm-...m-f1-4-ex/

 

Whether the difference is important to you as photographer, that is personal. But the difference is clear and there....

For more light, one should not bother. As most of the extra light gets lost at micro lens level anyway. Same is true for f1.4 vs f1.8, by the way.
No, I meant f/1.2 vs f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 on the same lens. Sigma is apparently a bit shorter, hence the difference - which still doesn't look nearly important enough for me. I might get the Sigma someday though (I know I want one).
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)