Does anyone use the Nikon 58mm F1.4G?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Not a lot about it on here from what I can find. The reviews online from real world use seem positive and that it has a certain quality about it. Eventually I would like to add a 50mm or close to my 35/85. The Nikon 50mm F1.4G looks underwhelming. The one to go for seems to be the Sigma from the reviews, but does this new 58 have something that's worth having? Or is it just an expensive marketing ploy with the whole NOCT homage etc.
 
I had the 58 Noct and the rendering of the new 58 reminds me of it. The reviews don't rate it as the sharpest lens in the world but the rendering style is very nice. The Sigma ART would be ahead of it if I were in the market for a 50.
 
It looks to be an overpriced dud to me. I've got the new sigma 50mm which seems pretty good but I'm not sure the bokeh is anything special - although I do need to trial it more before I can say for sure.
 
Laudrup said:
I had the 58 Noct and the rendering of the new 58 reminds me of it. The reviews don't rate it as the sharpest lens in the world but the rendering style is very nice. The Sigma ART would be ahead of it if I were in the market for a 50.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I read. not the sharpest wide open but sharp enough, but it's strengths are in the depth of field and lovely bokeh which give the images a certain quality.

ryanyboy said:
It looks to be an overpriced dud to me. I've got the new sigma 50mm which seems pretty good but I'm not sure the bokeh is anything special - although I do need to trial it more before I can say for sure.
Click to expand...

Possibly right Ryan. Although again dependant on what you want I guess. As above, the reviews seem to say that sharpness is second to a certain quality of image.

BillN_33 said:
Nikon still produce the MF 55mm f1.2
Click to expand...

Not really of interest to me I'm afraid. Happy with MF on the Hasselblad but wouldn't want it for weddings.
 
Everything I've read suggests the Sigma 50mm ART lens is a better investment.

I question why anyone would need one though. I was interested in the Zeiss Otus for a while, then thought sensibly, that for the money, I can almost buy a medium format digital camera... and once I realised that, I reminded myself that I can use a Phaseone IQ180 from work any time I like... and I hardly ever actually bother doing that... so what's the point? I can print up to A1 with perfect quality using a 50mm 1.8G on a D800E so why would anyone spend more than that?

As for a "look" to the 58mm... I'm not convinced it has one TBH.
 
Pookeyhead said:
As for a "look" to the 58mm... I'm not convinced it has one TBH.
Click to expand...

A 'look' is exactly the kind of last resort subjective quality that is given to expensive things to justify the price when in all objective measures there isn't one. It allows people to feel good about their expensive purchase and if someone else can't see it then they just don't have good enough eyes.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Everything I've read suggests the Sigma 50mm ART lens is a better investment.

I question why anyone would need one though. I was interested in the Zeiss Otus for a while, then thought sensibly, that for the money, I can almost buy a medium format digital camera... and once I realised that, I reminded myself that I can use a Phaseone IQ180 from work any time I like... and I hardly ever actually bother doing that... so what's the point? I can print up to A1 with perfect quality using a 50mm 1.8G on a D800E so why would anyone spend more than that?

As for a "look" to the 58mm... I'm not convinced it has one TBH.
Click to expand...

You make a good point about thinking you need/want something then realising you actually don't. I have been there many times whether with photography or other things.

Nawty said:
A 'look' is exactly the kind of last resort subjective quality that is given to expensive things to justify the price when in all objective measures there isn't one. It allows people to feel good about their expensive purchase and if someone else can't see it then they just don't have good enough eyes.
Click to expand...

You possibly make a very good point. As I say, i haven't used one of these so unsure if this is the case with this particular lens. It may or may not have something. That's why I was hoping someone would have used one here.
 
Nawty said:
A 'look' is exactly the kind of last resort subjective quality that is given to expensive things to justify the price when in all objective measures there isn't one. It allows people to feel good about their expensive purchase and if someone else can't see it then they just don't have good enough eyes.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with this. I get fed up with hearing about how well the 58 'renders'. That's meaningless drivel.
 
Nawty said:
A 'look' is exactly the kind of last resort subjective quality that is given to expensive things to justify the price when in all objective measures there isn't one. It allows people to feel good about their expensive purchase and if someone else can't see it then they just don't have good enough eyes.
Click to expand...

That's what they tend to say about the Leica f0.95 - I think some of these expensive lens are for specialised situations and need experience and practice to get right.

I have never produced a descent image with my Nikon 55mm f1.2 but have seen some really good images on the web from guys who are much better photographers than I will ever be, same goes for the Leica f0.95 …… there are some marvellous B & W images out there but in my hands the results would be hit or miss at the best.
 
Nawty said:
A 'look' is exactly the kind of last resort subjective quality that is given to expensive things to justify the price when in all objective measures there isn't one. It allows people to feel good about their expensive purchase and if someone else can't see it then they just don't have good enough eyes.
Click to expand...

I can paraphrase it in the Nikon terms of the 58G being a threedimensionally high-fidelity lens with a construction that enhances depth reproduction by utilizing natural transition of bokeh from a sharply focused point, to a slightly blurred point, then a fully blurred point. Sagittal coma flare is also reduced which achieves a superior reproduction of point light sources as point images without distortion or fringes while retaining higher resolution than that of the Noct Nikkor.

I just prefer to say it renders nicely.
 
Lyope said:
Meh, this is all starting to sound a bit like HiFi twattery. It's only a lens and it's what you put in front of it that counts.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, hifi twattery (as you so elegantly put it) was what I was thinking as an analogy.

Bill, what you say kinda confirms that it's the person behind the camera that counts :)
 
Lyope said:
Meh, this is all starting to sound a bit like HiFi twattery. It's only a lens and it's what you put in front of it that counts.
Click to expand...

At this price the 58G needs to be looked at carefully to see if it meets your needs. Nikon have done a lot of work to correct this lens for specific types of shooting. They aren't just slicing off the bottom of Coke bottles and saying this'll do.
 
Nawty said:
Funnily enough, hifi twattery (as you so elegantly put it) was what I was thinking as an analogy.

Bill, what you say kinda confirms that it's the person behind the camera that counts :)
Click to expand...

That's what I was indicating but even more so when it comes to say a f1.2 or f0.95

maybe with a kit lens if you press the shutter long enough you will get a good shot, but with say a very expensive Nikon, Canon or Leica f0.95 especially MF lens or similar it takes real skill to achieve a good result.

As I said earlier "I think some of these expensive lens are for specialised situations and need experience and practice to get right"
 
Last edited:
What was Nikon thinking. The lens that nobody asked for, and nobody wants now :(
 
BillN_33 said:
I think that the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus Distagon T* is treble the price and supposed to be the best around

Good review of 50 something lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Otus-55mm-f-1.4-Distagon-Lens.aspx

I'll post up a few images for your later, (I wish!!!)_
Click to expand...

I've got one, it's a superb lens. The Sigma ART is worth consideration though if you can deal with the size, weight and relative price compared to the Nikon 50 f/1.4. The Nikon 58G I'd still like for the bokeh and its rendering and I like lenses that are a bit of an oddity. If Nikon do discontinue it I'd imagine the prices going up.
 
Laudrup said:
I've got one, it's a superb lens. The Sigma ART is worth consideration though if you can deal with the size, weight and relative price compared to the Nikon 50 f/1.4. The Nikon 58G I'd still like for the bokeh and its rendering and I like lenses that are a bit of an oddity. If Nikon do discontinue it I'd imagine the prices going up.
Click to expand...

I have a converted Nikkor Auto - S 55mm f1.2 - which I seldom use these days - my eyes aren't what they used to be so exact focus a f1.2 can take a little time

and a 50 f1.4 and 50 1.8 both AIS and E

I prefer my AF 50mm f1.8 G any day - better say "most days" before the pedantics move in
 
Last edited:
Go on to FM forums and check there thread.. what every people on here say it does have a very special look and feel to the images, which the sigma that everyone compares it to just doesn't have.
The nikon is no where near as sharp as the sigma though if ultimate sharpness is what your after.

Personally how ever great the images look ,I couldn't justify the price. It may have cost a lot to build/design but the cost if far to high.
 
I don't really understand the point of it. It is actually is worse than other 50mm lenses for minimum focus (only 60cm), which is a real-world impediment IMO, putting all that subjective stuff to one side.
 
pmac said:
Go on to FM forums and check there thread.. what every people on here say it does have a very special look and feel to the images
Click to expand...

Well that didn't help. Seems to be a lot of love for it over there. It is pricey though!

Sam Hurd seems to love it for weddings and wot not.

TheGreatSoprendo said:
I don't really understand the point of it. It is actually is worse than other 50mm lenses for minimum focus (only 60cm), which is a real-world impediment IMO, putting all that subjective stuff to one side.
Click to expand...

It's not 50mm though so it's bound to have a slightly longer MFD?
 
I think everyone that uses it seems to love it. Where as everyone here is just going on price and comparing it to other len's without even trying it. I tryed one on a d800 in the nikon shop in shanghai its big and heavy not far of my 85 1.4g. Having owned both the 50 1.8's & trying the 1.4 . For me I coukdnt justify the price especially as I only shoot for my own enjoyment. Since then ive even shifted my 50mm as wasnt getting used after buying a 35mm. 35/85 ment the 50 was to close between the two and my 24-70 covers it if needed.
 
It's most definitely not a dud lens and is aimed squarely and those shooting people in low-light/night. The Sigma may well be sharper, but sharpness is one aspect of a lens.

I've seen some absolutely stunning work from people using it, and some dreadful work. That tells me it ain't the lens.

Expensive, yes, and niche. But if you need what it offers it makes a lot of sense.
 
pmac said:
I think everyone that uses it seems to love it. Where as everyone here is just going on price and comparing it to other len's without even trying it. I tryed one on a d800 in the nikon shop in shanghai its big and heavy not far of my 85 1.4g. Having owned both the 50 1.8's & trying the 1.4 . For me I coukdnt justify the price especially as I only shoot for my own enjoyment. Since then ive even shifted my 50mm as wasnt getting used after buying a 35mm. 35/85 ment the 50 was to close between the two and my 24-70 covers it if needed.
Click to expand...

That's kinda why my initial question was, "does anyone use it?". As you say, those who do seem to speak highly of it. But as someone else said, is that just to justify the money they have paid or because it's actually really lovely? If I had listed to the online reviews of the DF by people who had not really used one, I wouldn't be loving mine now.

Which leads me on to......

Radiohead said:
It's most definitely not a dud lens and is aimed squarely and those shooting people in low-light/night. The Sigma may well be sharper, but sharpness is one aspect of a lens.

I've seen some absolutely stunning work from people using it, and some dreadful work. That tells me it ain't the lens.

Expensive, yes, and niche. But if you need what it offers it makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Dammit Guy. Last time I spoke to you I ended up buying a DF. :banghead: :LOL:

Think I am gonna have to try one of these if any of the rental places do them.
 
Laudrup said:
I can paraphrase it in the Nikon terms of the 58G being a threedimensionally high-fidelity lens with a construction that enhances depth reproduction by utilizing natural transition of bokeh from a sharply focused point, to a slightly blurred point, then a fully blurred point. Sagittal coma flare is also reduced which achieves a superior reproduction of point light sources as point images without distortion or fringes while retaining higher resolution than that of the Noct Nikkor.

I just prefer to say it renders nicely.
Click to expand...


Show me an image that necessitated any of that... furthermore, show me an example of the same scene shot with both lenses, and point out exactly where the extra money is going, and why it's worth it. :)

Lyope said:
Meh, this is all starting to sound a bit like HiFi twattery. It's only a lens and it's what you put in front of it that counts.
Click to expand...

I think I agree. I spent some time looking images from the Otus, and eventually realised that if I download enough of them, changed the file names so I could no longer remember what was taken with what, that I couldn't actually tell them apart.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Show me an image that necessitated any of that... furthermore, show me an example of the same scene shot with both lenses, and point out exactly where the extra money is going, and why it's worth it. :)



I think I agree. I spent some time looking images from the Otus, and eventually realised that if I download enough of them, changed the file names so I could no longer remember what was taken with what, that I couldn't actually tell them apart.
Click to expand...


No one will be able to provide the proof you seek, the only response to this is that the mind is a hugely powerful thing and subject qualities are often as important as objective ones.

I used to get really riled by this kind of thing (especially in the HiFi world, wine too) but then after a while I came to realise that subjective perception is so important in the way we perceive and interact with the world that who am I to argue - that's not to say there is a difference but as long as you think there is, and that makes you happy, then that's what counts.

After all, if the world was boiled down to real functional value it would be a very boring place and marketing wouldn't work.

Still, for me, busting over £1k one a lens such as this is stupid but that's just me.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Show me an image that necessitated any of that... furthermore, show me an example of the same scene shot with both lenses, and point out exactly where the extra money is going, and why it's worth it. :)



I think I agree. I spent some time looking images from the Otus, and eventually realised that if I download enough of them, changed the file names so I could no longer remember what was taken with what, that I couldn't actually tell them apart.
Click to expand...

I don't have the lens but there are enough images from it about to look at and it has very nice rendering. It's a better corrected lens for certain aberrations and has modern coatings and is arguably the rival to the Canon 50L. Worth it is all relative and doesn't mean to you what it means to someone else.

As for the Otus work with full resolution files and the difference is easy to see. Shoot with one vs your Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and see for yourself.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Think I am gonna have to try one of these if any of the rental places do them.
Click to expand...
Any particular timescale in mind? I'm not aware of any UK hire companies who currently stock this lens, but I have a couple of them on my shopping list. I just need to get the funding finalised (it's about £150,000 in total, which ain't the kind of change I have down the back of the sofa) and they'll be on their way...
 
StewartR said:
Any particular timescale in mind? I'm not aware of any UK hire companies who currently stock this lens, but I have a couple of them on my shopping list. I just need to get the funding finalised (it's about £150,000 in total, which ain't the kind of change I have down the back of the sofa) and they'll be on their way...
Click to expand...

There's no rush. I'm not looking to buy just yet, if at all. It's possibly too close to the 85mm to justify spending that sort of money to be honest.
 
I have decided I am more than likely gonna add this and the 24mm to my lineup when funds allow. I continue to watch the thread over on Fredmiranda and the quality looks fantastic.

Still weighing up the cost though and would be great to find a good, used one.
 
No I didn't. It's something I would definitely like at some point though. I know there are a couple of folks on here using them now. @Radiohead being one of them. :)
 
Very different lens.

Sharper yes. Better in tests yes.

Doesn't render like the 58mm though - it's a very special lens for people and low-light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top