Nikon 58mm f1.4: Some brief impressions after playing with one.

[richard_bach1]

<p >I was shocked when the lady at the photo store asked if I wanted to see the new Nikon 58mm. (I didn't even know it was available yet…) I played with one on a D610 (I left my D700 at work unfortunately...) for a few minutes. I don't have any telling images to share, but here are my impressions.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. Its enormous for a 50mm, but the build quality is no better than the 50mm 1.4G. It is not a lens up to pro standard build, nothing like the pro f1.4 lenses. The large size plus mediocre build is a bit of a strange package overall.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. Bokeh is improved from the regular 50mm 1.4G, but not perfect. I have the 50mm 1.4G, and i find that it gives pretty good bokeh under the right conditions (ie. not too much contrast on the background elements, somewhere around the middle of the distance scale), but the 58mm seems to give the ideal bokeh no matter what you point it at. Though not as perfect as some other lenses…</p>

<p > </p>

<p >3. Sharpness, contrast, and overall quality of rendering seem to hold all the way through the focus range. Many of the Nikon primes I've used (including the 50mm 1.4G) seem to be well corrected for one particular distance, with the rendering and character deteriorating in opposite way towards either end of the distance scale. (my beloved 50mm is rather soft and spherical aberration riddled up close, and harsh at long distances)The 58mm seems to be immune to this, and always just "looked good" even at f1.4. This is the big thing that I noticed was different between the 50mm and the 58mm in my limited time with it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >4. Perhaps this has something to do without he focal length or the level/type of correction at work, but depth of field just "feels" shallower than the 50mm f1.4. This is purely anecdotal, but it was just something I noticed.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So these are my impressions. Nothing scientific or complete here, just some screwing around in a camera store. I feel I've used it enough to know I;m not too interested in buying it at that price (the build quality just feels like a letdown at the 4-figure price…). Perhaps its made for someone who wants the best AF ~50mm f1.4, but I reckon it'll be a tough sell without the 50mm f1.4G being a very good lens already.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

It is light weight, as the optical elements are only slightly larger than

those of the 50/1.4. Nikon seems to have constructed it with a longer than necessary physical chassis to make room for the wide manual

focus ring, which is the first manual focus ring of an AF-S lens that I've used which is actually dampened. However, other than the superior manual

focus feel, I don't see any externally visible difference in build quality of the 58/1.4 compared to the 85/1.4 or 35/1.4.

 

Did they let you open it up to see the build quality inside? What exactly was the problem?

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p>Did they let you open it up to see the build quality inside? What exactly was the problem?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, They let me handle it and shoot with it (I think that's what you were asking). It's not anywhere near the level of those guys, it really does just feel like the 50mm f1.4G (Which is fine for a $400 lens, but I'd say disappointing for the high price ). Nothing compared to, say, my old 17-55 1.8G.<br>

Also the manual focus feel is the same, ie. not really anything special. Overall it didn't feel like a pro lens, which is weird considering the price and size.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I meant inside the lens, not inside the box. Some people actually open up lenses to see how they're built. What is normally meant by <em>build quality </em>i.e. quality of the construction, is how the lens elements are supported, will they withstand impacts, is there mechanical play, how the controls are constructed and so on. To see how a lens is built, you need to take it apart.</p>

<p>Anyway, for what it's worth from my point of view the externally visible parts of build quality of the 58mm are similar or a slight improvement incompared to the 85/1.4 AF-S, but the lens is lighter (as the front elements are not as large). The 50/1.4 which I no longer own, had a manual focusing ring which is quite narrow and not as easy to use as that of the 58mm. But I accept that you disagree, no problem with that.</p>

<p>As to how hard it is to sell, it would not be surprising if Nikon sells the two in 1:10 ratio, with the 50mm selling in greater numbers. But that's because the 50mm is inexpensive and so the market is larger, irrespective of the optical differences between the two. But still if Nikon sells one 58mm for every 10 50/1.4's I think it is a success. ;-)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>About bokeh, I think the perfect lens with perfect bokeh doesn`t exist. I use to consider the bokeh of Nikon lenses something like "mediocre", but to be sincere, I`m not aware of "good bokeh" lenses... maybe some vintage ones with a quite low performance in comparison, or some of the soft focus versions. I just bought a world acclaimed vintage Sonnar to enjoy the "good bokeh", and now is one of my favourite paperweights. I think the 50/1.4G is an average Nikkor, with a right bokeh; just pay attention to choose a background in order to have an acceptable or even nice out of focus rendition. Every bit of improvement is always welcomed, but I sincerely don`t expect to find a good lens with a perfect bokeh (well, there are specialized bokeh lenses, but they are not Nikon, and price is astronomical).</p>

<p>About the construction quality, many times it`s more for the senses than for the real use... since the eighties Nikon made plastic lens bodies, and they work. I personally hate the AF/AFD versions, to me the AFS ones are more pleasant in comparison. There aren`t AF lenses with the feel and look of the old manual focus ones, like the Ai Nikkors or M Leicas.<br /> It`s also true that after using aluminum based bodies, some top quality magnesium/plastic ones could show an unpleasant feel... but they work like a charm. <br /> As you say, the 17-55/2.8G is a lens that feels right, like the 28-70. Now I use the lighter, softer 24-70... at first, it had a not as good feel, right now I prefer its lighter, softer, maybe somewhat plasticy feel (btw, many people also claim about magnesium, which sometimes feel like plastic).</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I'd be very interested if Sigma have a go at one of these. After-all, arguably, they've made a better 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and an as good 85mm 1.4 than Nikon so far!</p>

<p>Sigma are no longer afraid of playing with, and beating, 'the big boys' and are happy to charge more for a better lens. I imagine they could make a 58mm 1.4 more cheaply, and possibly better, than Nikon.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Bokeh is subjective anyway; it cannot be seriously measured in a clear, scientific way. So any claim for perfect bokeh, or extremely good bokeh is wide open to discussion. Could make nice discussion, but one that will be very likely to end in an agreement to disagree.<br>

From all the photos I've seen so far of the 58 f/1.4, I really like its rendering, looks nicer to me than the 50mm f/1.4G and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (that many claim to have a really great bokeh - I'm not blown away with what I've seen). A bit like my 50 f/1.2 at f/2, with the same nice gradual transition from focus to out of focus like the 105 f/2.5.<br>

But heck, that's just highly subjective because I tend to like those two lenses a lot. And putting it like this, I found perfect reasons to not get the 58 f/1.4, which is way out of my budget anyway :-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>After-all, arguably, they've made a better 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and an as good 85mm 1.4 than Nikon so far!</em></p>

<p>Such an argument can be made, as can the opposite; I see no consensus on the matter. Usually the lens that is sharper wide open in the corners has worse bokeh, but it is more complicated than that. </p>

<p><em>Bokeh is subjective anyway; it cannot be seriously measured in a clear, scientific way.</em></p>

<p>Right; it depends on the distances between the lens and main subject and then the distance to the out of focus area that is considered, and finally subjective assessment is needed to judge its quality. That's why it is nice that there are many options to choose from, so that we can each find lenses that have rendering that please our personal aesthetic preferences. A lot of people seem to want to make absolute judgments about which lens is better than another but in the end it depends a lot on personal style and preference.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>1. Its enormous for a 50mm, but the build quality is no better than the 50mm 1.4G. It is not a <a id="itxthook1" href="#" rel="nofollow">lens<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> up to pro standard build, nothing like the pro f1.4 lenses. The large size plus mediocre build is a bit of a strange package overall.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but I'm finding the above a bit contradictory. The 50mm f/1.4G <em>is</em> one of Nikon's pro quality lenses, and if the 58mm f/1.4 matches it in build quality, then ergo it must also be a pro quality lens.</p>

<p>Are you sure you're not confusing the weight-to-volume ratio of a lens with its build quality Richard? Some lenses are quite light for their size (many modern macro lenses for example), but it doesn't make them any less-well made. Durability can only be determined through use over time, and not by a quick handling in a photo store. For example the 24-70 f/2.8 Zoom Nikkor is highly regarded and feels very well made, yet there are numerous reports of the zoom ring becoming sloppy, stiff, gritty-feeling or even seizing up completely after relatively brief use. I've witnessed such poor handling myself on several samples, and for that reason refused to buy one. OTOH, I don't think a light focus touch or lightweight feel would put me off the 58mm at all - although the price would!<br>

Maybe when a few people tire of their new toy and start selling them off at a realistic price I might consider one. At the moment, acquiring yet another fast 'standard' lens isn't a priority for me. It's still going to produce pictures that look like they were taken with a standard lens.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Bokeh is subjective anyway; it cannot be seriously measured in a clear, scientific way.</blockquote>

 

<p>Nonsense (sorry). A blur circle of constant illumination or (as with the Sony STF lenses) falloff towards the edges is less distracting than one with "ringing" or highlights around the rim. One can also argue that colour fringes (the problem with my 135 DC, which otherwise did the falloff thing well) and noncircular apertures (both because of blades and vignetting) can be distracting. These effects are deliberately considered during lens design, and not rocket science to measure - taking an image of an unfocused point light source is a pretty good starting point, which is roughly what Photozone do.<br />

<br />

As ever, some designs have different trade-offs. The 85 f/1.4 AF-D has respectably smooth bokeh, but is extremely soft in the corners because that was prioritised (the same applies to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4o if considered on full frame). The AF-S 85mm is better, but has bad LoCA. And it's generally much easier to produce "good" bokeh if you're producing less of it. I don't believe that the 85 f/1.4 AF-D had smooth bokeh or that the 85 f/1.8 AF-D was a little harsh; the subjective opinion came down to whether the other characteristics of the lenses were worth their bokeh behaviour.<br />

<br />

For the record, I consider the 200 f/2 to have very good bokeh, by most of the above criteria. Sure, you can be subjectively more bothered by some of these artifacts than others, but that's not the same as them being unmeasurable.<br />

<br />

I've avoided expensive 50mm lenses on the basis that their performance has generally not been all that special. Bokeh is especially what interests me, and I'm particularly interested in the LoCA behaviour of this lens. That was a design goal of the Otus, and - while not perfect - it does seem to hide all but the worst LoCA artifacts (though in some cases the bokeh looks a little uneven in the sample shots I've seen). I would, of course, much rather get an AF lens at 58mm prices than a manual focus one at Otus prices unless the difference is significant.<br />

<br />

Richard: Re. build quality, do you just mean that the exterior wasn't metal? That may be a good thing...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Some people actually open up lenses to see how they're built</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You must have <em>very</em> understanding stores where you live is all I can say...</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The 58 is built to the structural and weather sealing levels of the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, and 84/1.4. OP, you are suggesting it's built to the consumer standard like the 28/1.8 and 85/1.8.</p>

<p>I believe that will be shown to be incorrect, and that is why Ilkka responded as he did. From other reports now surfacing, the 58 appears to be a remarkably fine optic.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Andrew, not nonsens:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A blur circle of constant illumination or (as with the Sony STF lenses) falloff towards the edges is less distracting than one with "ringing" or highlights around the rim</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the common accepted "good bokeh" description. <em>Common accepted</em> being the main thing here. It's not fact. Sure you can measure the behaviour of the OoF rendering via image analysis, and match the measurement to a scale of sorts. The problem is the conclusion derived from that. You could say "given it's 9,7 out of 10 on the even blob-illumination scale", it's out of focus rendering is dreamy/creamy/very smooth, or "has evenly-lit OoF highlights" or something like that. But that's it. It's still not good or bad bokeh - that's a personal judgement call, how one personally appreciates the OoF rendering.<br>

Bokeh is about aesthetics, and that does bring in taste, and hence subjectivity. Even the pretty distracting pointy centre lights can be defendable if that's where one is after. The whirley spirals of fast wide angles - some like 'm, some don't. Etc.</p>

<p>That said, we sure agree your 200 f/2 is a whole lot more pleasant to the eye than the 50 f/1.8D. And that most people would agree on that. But that still happens to be a bunch of opinions, only. Or, for the OoF rendering of the 50 f/1.8D, opunions.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you sure you're not confusing the weight-to-volume ratio of a lens with its build quality Richard? Some lenses are quite light for their size (many modern macro lenses for example), but it doesn't make them any less-well made.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I hear your point (Personally I'm a big fan of lighter lenses nowadays), but I really think the build is actually lacking. Of course my time was pretty limited, and I can't speak to its long term utility, but it just felt a little cheap I suppose. Most of the pro Nikkors just have a certain quality feel to them when you first pick them up, and this lens does not. Build quality is certainly subjective and based on the qualities one is looking for in a lens, but for the price I feel Nikon could've done bit better.<br>

</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>Bokeh is subjective anyway; it cannot be seriously measured in a clear, scientific way.

<p>Nonsense (sorry). A blur circle of constant illumination or (as with the Sony STF lenses) falloff towards the edges is less distracting than one with "ringing" or highlights around the rim.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Its funny you use that particular lens as an example, because format the images I've seen I actually really don't like the bokeh from that lens. I understand it was engineered to be technically perfect in that regard, but I suppose I like bait of swirl and character in my bokeh. The Sony lens is almost TOO perfect, and looks something like a Photoshop filter to me. This all speaks to the subjectivity of bokeh i guess!</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Andrew, bokeh is subjective because people have different tastes in what is good or bad. Sure you can scientifically measure some stuff but that doesn't mean people have to like it.</p>

<p>I've seen so much about this kickstarter campaign to make Petzval lenses and how wonderful they are because of their "swirly" bokeh. After looking at a lot of images I decided that I find it interesting but also sometimes distracting. Others are willing to pay hundreds for such a lens. There was even someone on photo.net asking about mirror lenses and wanted one specifically BECAUSE of the donut bokeh that I find hideously distracting. There's no account for taste.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>You must have very understanding stores where you live is all I can say...</em></p>

<p>First you have to buy it, of course, before you can take it apart and investigate build quality. You could also buy ten copies and see how they hold up in a drop test at varying heights. One approach would be to wait 10 years and as a repair tech you'll get an idea of how the longevity is. Or you could ask lensrentals.com about it after they have some data on how well the new lenses hold up. Picking up the lens and rating the sensory input your brain gets from that experience is likely to tell as much about the build quality of the lens as astrology will tell about one's future. I'm sorry to have to put it so bluntly.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Spend twice the money - get the better lens: DxOMark just compared the 58/1.4 with the Otus 55/1.4: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-Otus-1-4-55-ZF.2-Nikon-lens-review-Peerless-Outstanding-Optical-Performance/Zeiss-Distagon-T-Otus-1.4-55-ZF.2-Nikon-vs-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-58mm-f-1.4G-New-Nikkor-Outclassed</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Dieter, what do you use to focus the Otus e.g. on portrait subjects in low light with your Nikons? I sold my 50/1.4 ZF because of the worst wide open bokeh of any fast non-macro prime I've ever used (I didn't use it for several years), and because I couldn't get people subjects in focus adequately without stopping down to f/2.8 (in typical indoor lighting situations). From f/2.8 to f/4 it was truly excellent though. The 50/1.4 AF-S that I had before the 58mm came out is much easier to work with at wide apertures and kinder rendering than the 50/1.4 ZF too. I wonder what makes the Otus easier to focus than the 50/1.4 ZF. I guess the Df will make it possible to focus it using the viewfinder matte area to some degree of precision but using a 16MP sensor with an extremely high resolution lens doesn't seem like an ideal fit. I suppose it's possible there will be a Df X one day, with high resolution, if the Df becomes popular.</p>

<p>With the 58/1.4 AF-S I'm getting roughly about 10% out of focus rate at f/1.4 when I'm photographing static portrait subjects using the D800 in office interiors (indoor fluorescent light, not great color but reasonably even light).</p>

<p>For the Zeiss lenses I've found the ones with maximum aperture of f/2 to be easier to focus than the f/1.4 was. I don't really know what the reason for that is, perhaps the wide open image of an f/2 lens has fewer aberrations?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Dieter, what do you use to focus the Otus e.g. on portrait subjects in low light with your Nikons?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no experience manually focusing such fast glass - I assume that using live view would be the way to go. </p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Ahhhh, writing about bokeh. Never very helpful.</p>

[Andy Murphy]

<p>In addition to the 50 f1.2 on the D200, 85 f1.4, & 105 f2.5, I like the results (Bokeh & focus on subject) with the 180 f2.8. It seems the longer the focal length, the easier it is to bokeh the background.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have any telling images to share</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In which case, how did you manage to rate "sharpness, contrast, and overall quality of rendering" as well as "bokeh"? Were your impressions gathered solely through the viewfinder?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Andy: I think the slower the relative aperture, the easier it is to produce nice bokeh - and a longer lens means you can blur the background more at the same aperture.<br />

<br />

I'll slightly weaken my "nonsense" comment. The generally-accepted aim of "good" bokeh is to provide a background that's not distracting - particularly, lacks fine detail that might take the eye away from the in-focus foreground. The more featureless the background is (within the remit of the selected aperture - you're not supposed to remove it entirely) the better. Most lenses with good bokeh effectively box-filter the out-of-focus areas, which is not a bad approach; most lenses considered to have "poor" bokeh have a bad approximation to a box filter, with ringing artifacts. The STF lenses approximate a gaussian filter, which ought to do a better job of hiding background detail, but I can understand that the effect is unusual (particularly, not the way that the eye behaves) and therefore might itself be distracting despite not containing high frequency information.<br />

<br />

Shooting for a particular artistic effect with the out-of-focus regions is another matter. Circular apertures tend to introduce the minimum distraction; polygons tend not to be too distracting (and have the advantage, if you like that kind of thing, of producing star burst diffraction spikes around highlights); some people like to use shapes for effect, and I'm not going to call them wrong. As Walt says, some might use a mirror lens for artistic effect, but not to make the background undistracting.<br />

<br />

I think there's agreement that a bokeh that's a completely uniform circle - especially with gentle fall-off at the edges - would be "good" from the perspective of not introducing distracting artifacts into out-of-focus regions; signal processing bears this out. You can measure how closely lenses approximate that ideal, although I would suggest that there are several things to measure rather than a single number. What is subjective is how much the different deviations from this ideal are objectionable. Personally, I don't overly mind non-circular bokeh, but colour fringes drive me nuts.<br />

<br />

I'm distinguishing bokeh here from other lens effects - there are many reasons I might not consider a lens no matter how good its bokeh is. The Petzval bokeh is actually pretty ugly; its unique effect is due to extreme field curvature. Similarly, the 85 f/1.4 AF-D is seen as having "good bokeh" in part because the edges of the image are so soft at wide apertures - that does have the effect of focussing attention on the subject (<i>if</i> the subject is central in the frame), but it's not separating the foreground from the background.<br />

<br />

So I stand by my assertion that it's possible to measure bokeh, and that most people would agree on a definition of "good bokeh", at least when the bokeh is not being used for deliberate effect of its own. Disagreements come with <i>how</i> bad deviations from ideal are, which I concede is highly subjective, and because there are lots of optical artifacts that have creative uses that people tend to categorize as bokeh when, in fact, they're another effect entirely. In other words, I'd like to see more things tested (and images of bokeh), not just a small set of numbers summarizing a lens, and not ignoring bokeh entirely. (If you're going to measure bokeh, measure everything about it!) But I'd certainly like reviewers to consider bokeh rather than making a blanket statement about how "good" it is, or ignoring it completely.<br />

<br />

Dieter: Oh dear. I saw that <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/otus-is-scharf">Lens Rentals</a> had played with one as well, with similar conclusions. I'm a bit annoyed that dpreview no longer (since the tie-up with DxO) seem to let you see thumbnails of bits of the test chart to see what exactly has happened at each area to give the reported figures. I'll be interested in seeing more sample images (I'm a bit worried that Zeiss's attempts to correct LoCA seem to do some funny things to the bokeh smoothness, as in their 135 f/2), but I guess I'll be saving. Damn, now I only own the second sharpest lens DxO tested! (Though I don't have a Coastal Optics either.)</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>First you have to buy it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you were joking originally - sorry, your humor was a bit too dry for me to pick up!</p>