Nikon 58 mm F/1.4

[138S]

They aren't even similar for the intended use of the 58G, which IMHO is environmental portraits. What the 58G shines at is how it transitions to OOF

The AI-S 58mm F/1.2 NOCT was manufactured 1977-1997, after it was discontinued collectors became crazy and ebay prices peaked $4000 and more for used samples.

At Nikon they grasped their heads... Was it a good opportunity to make new (wide open) no Coma expensive glasses ?

But when the 58mm 1.4G product was ready to ship (2013) DSLRs had low noise at high ISO and it was possible to stop two or three clicks to get general sharpness at night... and at that point you require no expensive aespheric design to avoid Coma.

Solution... remove the NOCT stamp and promote it as a portrait lens... you have to sell that... Intended use changed, but not in a convincing way (IMO). That expensive construction of the 58mm 1.4G was intended for night photography to subtitute the NOCT, and that huge overcost has no advantage for portraits IMO, it performs better at night wide open, but it the same way than the 50mm 1.4G for portraits, similar bokeh. I see not much a difference.


Environmental portraits vs focus transitions

Are transitions important in an environmental portrait ? Well, subject is far and you won't see the transitions in the subject's face, transitions in the face are critical in a head&shoulders portrait, but in an environmental portrait you may even have no transition from subject to a more distant background. Still for sure you may value transitions, but many times what counts the mosr is a high quality bokeh.

Anyway those transitions in the 58G are pretty equivalent to the 50mm F/1.4G for 1/4 of the price. The focal is different, OK.

Sure the 58 1.4G is a good portrait lens, but at $1500 I've better choices.

Sorry I didn't catch you read DXOmark reviews, nevermind...

IMO, DXO offers to me limited information about lenses, bokeh is much evaluated and it's the most important feature to me, but DXO has tons of useful information, I mostly use the sharpness vs field vs aperture maps and the focal vs aperture vs sharpness maps, which I find extraordinarily informative and useful, for example this graph shows the safe usage conditions of a consumer lens:



Regarding their Perceptual Pixel Count rating I have to say that's quite useful to compare in relative terms, knowing how a lens I know is rated I can figure how another lens will be. Still sharpness, personaly, is the least I value of a lens.

_____

I agree with these conclusions:




_____


Tansitions

To me this is charted in the Through Focus MTF graphs, a Super-Baltar has a nice footprint there.

 

[StepheKoontz]

The AI-S 58mm F/1.2 NOCT was manufactured 1977-1997, after it was discontinued collectors became crazy and ebay prices peaked $4000 and more for used samples.

At Nikon they grasped their heads... Was it a good opportunity to make new (wide open) no Coma expensive glasses ?

Blah blah blah from someone who has never used the lens, looking at DXO charts, and parroting what they have seen in a youtube video...

I'd rather listen to the man who actually designed the lens that your speculations.

https://translate.google.com/transl...o.jp/docs/news/interview/20131108_621449.html

 

[138S]

Blah blah blah from someone who has never used the lens

Stephe, I've a friend who is a succesful Pro, he works digital but often he uses my darkroom for personal silvery work. I evaluated with him his 58G, our personal conclusions were exactly the same than in the "Is the Nikon 58mm f1.4 worth $1600?" in the post #76 video

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/20131108_621449.html

Thanks for that excellent link, I saved it. But see what Sato says (after some salt) about the real problem 58G solves:

"Sato: Sagittal coma flare is an aberration in which a point light source such as a night view or a starry sky is shaped like a hawk or a seagull flies around the screen. If the sagittal coma flare is large, distortion and bleeding of the point image will occur, and it will not be a desirable picture"


IMO the 58G price has $1100 invested in removing coma wide open, an amazing achivement.

This is the feature Sato remarks, and it's the true excellent feature of the 58G, the NOCT heritage. Is this useful for portraits? No... at least I don't see much how. For the rest IMO it is near exactly a 50mm 1.4G, with similar bokeh, and 8mm (16%) longer focal .

It is one of the scarce lenses around depicting nocturnal bright points as points when wide open, and this is 1500 bucks.


Also it is a highly and well (spheric ab.) corrected lens, that takes 9 elements (2 Asph) plus allowing distortion and focus breath (Sato does not mention he allowed that... should he?)

__________________________

For portraits... controlled bokeh, the 105/135 DC !!! You have a ring to adjust bokeh, isn't it ?

 

[StepheKoontz]

This is the feature Sato remarks, and it's the true excellent feature of the 58G, the NOCT heritage. Is this useful for portraits? No... at least I don't see much how. For the rest IMO it is near exactly a 50mm 1.4G, with similar bokeh, and 8mm (16%) longer focal .

Not even close IMHO. If you can't see the difference, then by all means save your money. I was easily able to pick out the 58G shots. I also own the 35mm f1.4G after trying to like the much cheaper and admittedly sharper 35mm f1.8G FX. Many people can't see why anyone would pay $1000 more for the 1.4G version, it was obvious to me.

 

[138S]

Not even close IMHO. If you can't see the difference, then by all means save your money. I was easily able to pick out the 58G shots. I also own the 35mm f1.4G after trying to like the much cheaper and admittedly sharper 35mm f1.8G FX. Many people can't see why anyone would pay $1000 more for the 1.4G version, it was obvious to me.

Stephe, I just found a good review I read time ago: http://blogdozack.com.br/index.php/portfolio/nikon-af-s-nikkor-58mm-f1-4g-en/

This is the effect of the well corrected coma wide open:


Bokeh (see it in the link, better quality):

I was easily able to pick out the 58G shots.

Of course !!!

it is a 20% longer focal !! This is an entire world in protraiture, there is a great perspective change for the same framing.

But a question is if the glass has something else for portraiture than the focal and the good quality bokeh. Compared to the 50/1.4, the 58/1.4 can deliver slightly more blur, as it's faster relatively to the focal, but less blur than the 50mm 1.2, this is what I found when I tested this lens.

Sato also allowed some chromatic aberration (wide open), he knows that today's cameras (and Ps) correct fringes, swelling the R-G-B planes like the calibrated map says.

You mentioned transitions... in cinematography they are always concerned with that. An important graph for them is Through Focus MTF. DOF calculations are theoric but in practice every lens has a particular roll-off to the OOF, some have more DOF to the front or to the back. The image you posted suggests a balanced DOF:




In cinematography a lens that has extended DOF to the front traded by diminished DOF to the back is a good asset, this is useful for common scennes with the two actors in a car or in a restaurant. They move focus to one actor and to the other when they speak to bring attention on them, they want the other actor and the background each with a certain degree of blur. Of course also they need zero breathing for that...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Not even close...

How many more flat spots do you estimate you'll acquire on your head before making good use of the ignore function?

 

[StepheKoontz]

Of course !!!

it is a 20% longer focal !! This is an entire world in protraiture, there is a great perspective change for the same framing.

But a question is if the glass has something else for portraiture than the focal and the good quality bokeh.

It's not the focal, it's the quality (not quantity) of the Bokeh. I can clearly see the choppy, 2 line Bokeh of the 50mm f1.4g samples even in a youtube video. And you in one post say how important the extra focal length is for portraits, then turn around and say no one can see the difference between these two lenses in use...

The bottom line is and has always been, people like yourself think this lens isn't worth the extra $$$. Well then don't buy it.

 

[138S]

And you in one post say how important the extra focal length is for portraits, then turn around and say no one can see the difference between these two lenses in use...

Sorry if I was not clear... IMO one focal is not better or worse for portraiture, it all depends on the particular shot, we even may have multiple subjects in the portrait or the wedding couple.

The bottom line is and has always been, people like yourself think this lens isn't worth the extra $$$. Well then don't buy it.

Personally I would not buy it even if price was $300, but I would buy the 105/135mm DC even if price was $2400 instead $1200.

The DC is a lens I don't have because I priorize portraiture LF glass now, but some (Japan) offers used at $550 are tempting.

The Takumar 105/2.4 of the P67 is a glass that reheats my heart, but when I tested the 58 I felt nothing special, and at the end I made the shots I like the most with the 50mm 1.8AFD.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/14725984164/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/21478354193/

 

[StepheKoontz]

How many more flat spots do you estimate you'll acquire on your head before making good use of the ignore function?

You are right, pointless when someone starts talking nonsense like they would rather shoot with a 50mm 1.8D...

 

[Lachlan Young]

You are right, pointless when someone starts talking nonsense like they would rather shoot with a 50mm 1.8D...

When someone is operating at the Paint By (Ken Rockwell) Numbers level, their opinions on lenses are best regarded as being somewhere at the far end of Pauli's 'Not Even Wrong' scale.

 

[138S]

You are right, pointless when someone starts talking nonsense like they would rather shoot with a 50mm 1.8D...

No.. what I say is that glass performance has a very relative importance for true photography art. Sally Mann has no problem with lenses sporting a crack in the middle, or sporting character from fungus. And many times she used lenses not covering well the format. Multicotating ? LOL.

...but her last exhibition shows the most impressive prints many have seen on a wall, dot.

Of course a Pro shooting all day long wants and needs first class late model gear, but great photographs are made by artists, and those would be all day laughing if you tell them that they need an anodyne G lens to make a great photograph.

See this:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

This is the author
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenbruggeman/

a 50mm 1.8D...

This is one of the best nikon lenses, bokeh is a bit harder than the 1.4, but it has no distortion which for film is quite nice.

Regarding sharpness you won't notice a difference between the 50/1.8AFD vs 50/1.4G vs 58/1.4G, it is impossible you notice it, you would require a Lab test to see it, but no pictorial result would show it. Do a side by side...

The 58G has more Chromatic Aberration than the 50AFD, a sacrifice traded for low coma

 

[138S]

When someone is operating at the Paint By (Ken Rockwell) Numbers level, their opinions on lenses are best regarded as being somewhere at the far end of Pauli's 'Not Even Wrong' scale.

Lachlan, you don't catch it... I learned a lot in the Ken Rockwell's site (I'm very grateful), but I also make my own emulsion (since 2017 only):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/33270857213/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/33551104771/

 

[StepheKoontz]

When someone is operating at the Paint By (Ken Rockwell) Numbers level, their opinions on lenses are best regarded as being somewhere at the far end of Pauli's 'Not Even Wrong' scale.

OK well at least I learned something from this LOL

 

[138S]

OK well at least I learned something from this LOL

yes... with lachlan one always learns a new way to perform funny personal disacreditations and personal attacks

Take it with some humor, of course

 

[Huss]

I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out.

 

[film_man]

a 50mm 1.8D...

This is one of the best nikon lenses, bokeh is a bit harder than the 1.4, but it has no distortion which for film is quite nice.

I honestly don't know why people are so fascniated about the 50/1.8D. I had one and found it low contrast and flat, boring looking at f/1.8 and f/2. Sharp, yes ok that's fine but there is so much more than sharpness in an image. Sharp and boring, that's what it is. Stop it down to f/2.8 and it was a new lens. I thought it was busted so got another one. Same. But I don't buy fast lenses to use them at f/2.8. So then I got a 50/1.4D, night and day, so much better and that is a great lens until you get the 50/1.2 and shoot that at f/2. Not tried the 58 but I'm sure that's an equal story.

If it is a money thing then ok for $100 yes it is good lens but the Canon 50/1.8 STM is much much better and even the plastic fantastic 50/1.8 II is a bit punchier. I'd rather shoot my craptastic Canon EOS 300 with a 50/1.8 STM for life than any Nikon if I had to be stuck with the 50/1.8D.

 

[138S]

I had one and found it low contrast and flat, boring looking at f/1.8 and f/2.

Perhaps you had the AF non D version, non multicoated. The AFD version is multicoated so totally contrasty, and it sends the Distance information for the flash unit.

The 1.8 it is slightly sharper than the 1.4 in lab tests (in practice the same), and it has no noticeable distortion, while the 1.4 has a noticeable one. Both have a diafragm with 7 straight blades.

Yes, bokeh quality of the 1.4 is superior, but to me the cheap 1.8 it is not boring, it is a very capable and optically excellent lens, with cheap plastic construction feel, but as I use it in the F5 with S AF then I don't need to touch it. Sometimes I use the 1.4, but for fiIm don't like the distortion.

 

[film_man]

Perhaps you had the AF non D version, non multicoated. The AFD version is multicoated so totally contrasty, and it sends the Distance information for the flash unit.

Both were the current AF-D version, bought new. I hardly (if ever) used them with flash so D or not would make not difference. As far as I know the flash distance info is the only change between them so I can't see how that makes any difference to contrast or anything else if you are not using flash.

 

[138S]

Both were the current AF-D version, bought new. I hardly (if ever) used them with flash so D or not would make not difference. As far as I know the flash distance info is the only change between them so I can't see how that makes any difference to contrast or anything else if you are not using flash.

The D version has been treated with Nikon updated high-grade Nikon Super Integrated Coating which delivers minimal ghost, minimal flare, outstanding performance and superior color reproduction.

The non D version has a quite inferior coating, it has more ghosting than many other Nikkor lenses. I appears MC in the reflexions in the elements but we should see if all surfaces were equally multicoated, and the quality of the MC. Clearly the non D version has a way inferior coating, there is no doubt.

What is clear is that the D version is as contrasty as any 50mm G lens featuring the super NIC.

Lens construction of the f 1.8 is not quasi symetric but close to that:



It has no floating element, you displace all the glass at the same time to focus, a unit focus design, this delivers focus breathing but this is traded for a great performance.

Comparing the 50 1.8 AFD to the 58G , clearly the graphs show a better performace wide open in the expensive case, but that won't be noticed much in practice:



Wide open, the center is as good in both lenses, but the 58G corners are better as we should expect of a lens sporting 2 Asph elements , but this is mostly irrelevant because wide open you probably will have the corners in the Out Of Focus.

If you want the corners in focus you probably will stop the lens, and as you close 1 or 2 stops then both lenses perfom exacly the same in practice.

With the 58G you pay all that money to have sharper corners (no coma) when wide open, to have solid Pro construction, and quite important for a Pro: to have instant manual focus, which is the greatest feature I personally value in it.

It is a totally pro lens no doubt, what a pro shooting all day long has to buy if he can.

But the 1.8D is terrific, not a Pro construction by far, but with excellent yield. What the 1.8 does or not depends on the photographer, I won my modest prizes with the 1.8, while I own quite more expensive glass.

 

[film_man]

But the 1.8D is terrific, not a Pro construction by far, but with excellent yield. What the 1.8 does or not depends on the photographer, I won my modest prizes with the 1.8, while I own quite more expensive glass.

Excellent, good I'm very happy to hear the 1.8D works for you and well done and congratulations on your prizes.

 

[iakustov]

I found one for a price I could live with, and decided to, in the words of the late Fred Picker, "Try it!"

So, have you tried? Did you also calibrate it with your F6?

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

So, have you tried? Did you also calibrate it with your F6?

I had it calibrated to my F6, by the Nikon USA service center. I have tried it, and I like it, especially for night photography This image was taken with a shutter speed of 1.5 seconds, at F/1.4, on Fuji Provia 100F.

 

[film_man]

I had it calibrated to my F6, by the Nikon USA service center. I have tried it, and I like it, especially for night photography This image was taken with a shutter speed of 1.5 seconds, at F/1.4, on Fuji Provia 100F.

View attachment 275269

Did it need calibrating or did you just get it done regardless? I love mine with the F5, works great even wide open. I just love that lens, I'm finding myself that every time I pick up the F5 that's the lens on it, for everything else I shoot the Leica. But thinking a 35/1.4 would be a nice pair with it.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Did it need calibrating or did you just get it done regardless? I love mine with the F5, works great even wide open. I just love that lens, I'm finding myself that every time I pick up the F5 that's the lens on it, for everything else I shoot the Leica. But thinking a 35/1.4 would be a nice pair with it.

I had it calibrated, regardless. I'd heard enough accounts of them needing to be calibrated, including on digital cameras, that I decided to have it done, prior to using the lens. Like you, I do quite like this lens.

 

[benwelland]

When I shot more weddings I lived and died by the 58/1.4G. Such beautiful rendering! It made people, groups, objects just look stunning. This is VERY much dependant on a calibrated AF system, which is harder to achieve with the F6. Plus film will further soften the images you get so I'm not sure if will have the same lustre as it does on digital. Frankly if I had an F6 and wanted to use the 58, I'd send both to Nikon for calibration match. They did it on another lens and it helps. Lens review people who are worried about charts and another technical metrics do not like the 58mm. Lucky for them Sigma makes an excellent 'IQ' 50. For people who want their images to look like they were shot with a Pentax 67 wide open, you grab the 58/1.4G.

The 58 made my digital images look like medium format film when well processed. Using film though I'd tend to just grab a medium format camera, if that makes sense. When shooting actual 35mm I tend to gravitate toward sharper lenses because you're fighting against the format a bit.

I've shot with the Nikon 58mm f/1.4 since 2015, and I can objectively say that, yes, this lens gets you as close to the medium format look as you can get! My dream setup used to be a Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 mounted onto a baveyes focal reducer, mounted onto a tech-art autofocus adapter, mounted onto a Sony mirrorless camera. But over the years, I've accepted that my 58mm f/1.4 mounted onto my Nikon mirrorless camera autofocuses waaaay better than that dream setup ever would, and produces images that are absolutely stunning. So I've stopped lusting over anything else. This lens is THE BOMB.