Nikon Df + 58mm f1.4 Image

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by wogears, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. If you look at this image, you will note that (essentially) there is NO depth of field. AFAICT, only one small area near the tip of the subject's nose, along with a few eyebrow hairs, is in focus. What in the name of That Which Flaps are they trying to show here? That you can use the newest camera and technology to produce an outtake? This is NOT a comment about the camera or the lens--we've had lots of those--but about the absurdity of the half-an-eye-in-focus school of portraits.
  2. It's for brokeh addicts who prefer to take photos of borkeh in which any subject matter is secondary to the delicious brokaw.
  3. I think that sample shot (which I happen to like) shows what you can do with the lens, but not necessarily what you have to do with the lens. A fast aperture lens like this or similar does not only get used for close-up portraits. Keep in mind that DOF increases as the distance to the subject increases so the lens can be used for many other applications without the penalty of ultra narrow DOF for very close subjects.
  4. I have no problem with the subject or the shallow DOF. I think the conversion to B&W could have been done better.
  5. According to EXIF, focus distance is 0.02m - when the minimum focus distance of the lens is 0.58m - how's that possible?
  6. Les, we don't know what they're trying to show because that's just a jpg with no context. Where did you find the link?

    Dieter, 0.02m is 2cm. Clearly this image was not shot at 2cm from the guy's nose, so the answer to your question is that
    what you saw in ex if is wrong.
  7. i'm impressed with the camera and lens specification, however the image in this thread of the gentleman is atrocious. Why publish a photograph like this to show a new camera's performance!
  8. Shallow depth of field and bokeh, that's what they are showing. And, that lens does both very well.
  9. Shallow depth of field and bokeh, that's what they are showing. And, that lens does both very well.​
    But isn't some part of the image, usually the eye, supposed to actually be sharp?
    Les, we don't know what they're trying to show because that's just a jpg with no context. Where did you find the link?​
    The link to all of the images is here.
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    But isn't some part of the image, usually the eye, supposed to actually be sharp?​
    Usually yes, but that is entirely up to the photographer to decide what effect and message she/he would like to convey with the image. I can't read minds, but the message in this case could well be demonstrating at 58mm, f1.4 (or whatever setting), how shallow the depth of field and the background blur can potentially be, not necessarily to deliver a technically "correct" image. In other words, this could well be a marketing image trying to sell you (the capability of) a particular lens and camera.
  11. I like that image a lot, too...
    But I would have stopped down if I were taking it.
  12. I have to agree with Paul 100%.
  13. Now that I see the set of samples, I don't see why this is a big deal.
  14. focus point was that eyebrow, which doubles as a nest for eagles.
  15. what happened to his other eye? looks like somebody spilled their vodka on the neg...
  16. Yes Les it's horrible isn't it. It does show shallow DOF and it clearly shows that making that shot wide open was not really the way to go.
  17. Eric: That nest of eagles just made my morning :)
    De gustibus non est disputandum.
    Photography is a creative way to express oneself, and it's clear a lens as the 58 f/1.4 gives a lot of creative liberty. Maybe too much to some liking.... that's OK, the 50mm f/1.8 will save you $1500 too. But realistically, there is no technical correct or wrong way to do things, no hard rules. It does have to fit a vision and idea, though..and for me this example fails at that point: the shallow DoF seems shallow for shallowness sake rather than actually adding something to the message. Which makes the image shallow on more than one level.
    But heck, I've done worse with my 50 f/1.2. Just not with portraits. Or birdnests.
  18. I shot this with an 85mm 1.8g @ F5
    There is still not enough DOF to allow the eye furthest away to be sharp. Next time I will try F11 and hopefully get what I wanted. I can only imagine how bad this would have looked wide open.
  19. In my use, the f/1.4 aperture is mostly useful for full body portraits and street images in crowded environments. This was shot at f/1.4 with the 85mm prime and it displays in my opinion a good balance of bokeh and sharpness, even though at the 24MP level it isn't equally sharp at all points of the dress. A 3D feeling is created by the variation in softness and sharpness.
    I just love this effect. My head and shoulders portraits, by contrast, are often made at f/4, in the studio I use f/8 to f/11 quite often but in available light f/4 for this. For the full body and 2/3 body shots I usually prefer to shoot wide open.
    This is another example of the use of the maximum aperture of an f/1.4 lens:
  20. Thats a good example of when 1.4 works really well. Thats the way I've been thinking lately. Stop down more when moving
    in closer.
  21. There are some good samples of 58/1.4 imaging and comparisons to other f/1.4 50-58mm fast primes up at Most of Lloyd Chamber’s analysis is by subscription. The New 58mm isn’t as good optically as the more expensive Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 Distagon (which Mr. Chambers used a prototype of).

    The Nikkor does seem to have very high flare resistance, making it a good choice for night photography. Interestingly, the Voigtlander 58mm/1.4 Nokton is almost as good as the Nikkor 58mm when both are stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller. The Nokton does suffer some flare patches at f/1.4 and f/2, and curiously the new Nikkor 58mm showed a very tiny flare UFO at f/5.6 that is absent at all other apertures.
  22. Yes, this is as extreme as it gets. Trendy? The answer to no bokeh? I'm not a fan of defocus either.

Share This Page