Lens Envy

[jenko]

I have a major case of Lens Envy for the Nikon 58mm 1.4. Good Lord, the rendering! I just love the look of this lens. Check out these samples on Pixel Peepers.

Ken Rockwell pretty much hates this lens. He thinks it's a big rip and the 50 1.4 is better. I agree the price is ridiculous, but the 58 does something entirely different in its rendering from other Nikon lenses, at least to my eyes. What do you see/think?

 

[480sparky]

I think I don't care what Ren Kockwell thinks.

I also think that if a particular piece of gear gets you the images you want, you shouldn't care what others think either.

 

[jenko]

I don't really care what he thinks, per say, but he gives in depth reviews, and it's always good to hear the other side of an opinion.

I research lenses before I buy them, especially if the price tag is $1695.

 

[480sparky]

..., but he gives in depth reviews, .........

He gives one person's opinion. And like all opinions, it should be taken 'with a grain of salt'.

I, too, will extensively research any gear that's on my wish list. The innernets is a great place, but it full of land mines. Many reviews are written by people who don't know how to properly review something. In those cases, I'll try to incorporate the writer's experience into my decision and see if there's any truth that can be extracted.

Rockwell has been known for 'reviewing' gear he's never touched.

 

[jenko]

..., but he gives in depth reviews, .........

He gives one person's opinion. And like all opinions, it should be taken 'with a grain of salt'.

I, too, will extensively research any gear that's on my wish list. The innernets is a great place, but it full of land mines. Many reviews are written by people who don't know how to properly review something. In those cases, I'll try to incorporate the writer's experience into my decision and see if there's any truth that can be extracted.

Well yeah, it's his opinion, but this lens has extremely mixed reviews from all over the internet. I've read customer reviews on B&H and several other websites. I was using one example of a negative review from a familiar source to play devil's advocate to my own love of how this lens renders. I have nothing against Ken Rockwell, and have found his reviews helpful in the past, not to mention pretty accurate with my own experience using certain lenses and cameras, even though he and I use lenses and cameras for very different types of photography, which is also something I keep in mind.

ANYWAY ...

It's a hefty price tag for this lens. But I really, really love the samples I have seen so far. I am wondering, though, if I could be almost as happy with something like the Sigma 50 art. The 58mm is not the sharpest lens, but it's unique in how it renders. I am okay with that as I have gotten away from that tack sharp "clinical" look in portraits and prefer something a bit more natural.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

I found myself in the past two to three months buying and returning lenses from Keh. I hate reading reviews, because the polar of both ends are what I usually see, so I prefer to find out my self instead of reading from two different sides, one saying a lens is sharp and the other claiming softness and so forth. I am fortunate enough to live in Atlanta, so I buy and return until I can get the item that I really want. There's nothing worst than buying something that has great reviews only for it to not live up to your expectations and then losing money on a resale that you'll eventually do.

 

[480sparky]

You'll find 'mixed reviews' for any piece of gear.

What's important is to read about the details that are important to you. For instance, someone may diss a 3rd-party lens because the focus ring turns the opposite direction as OEM glass. But if you use enough glass, that may not be an issue for you.

And what is not acceptable in terms of things like CA, vignetting and the like to the reviewer may not be such an issue to you as they can become a 1-click correction in post.

 

[jenko]

I found myself in the past two to three months buying and returning lenses from Keh. I hate reading reviews, because the polar of both ends are what I usually see, so I prefer to find out my self instead of reading from two different sides, one saying a lens is sharp and the other claiming softness and so forth. I am fortunate enough to live in Atlanta, so I buy and return until I can get the item that I really want. There's nothing worst than buying something that has great reviews only for it to not live up to your expectations and then losing money on a resale that you'll eventually do.

Yes, I agree. Maybe my best bet would be to rent it for a week. I just hate renting "online" from a company. The camera shop I usually rent from, where I know the owner, does not rent this lens. Perhaps a rental will be the best option for me, though.

 

[480sparky]

I always have advocated renting glass you're serious about buying. Especially in this price range. It's much cheaper than dropping the dime on it, only to find it's not up to your expectations, then having to go through the hassle of selling it.

If you do rent it, and find you want to buy it, be sure to contact the rental outfit you got it from and ask about buying the one you have in your hand. The worse they can say is 'Sorry, no. We want it back'. This gambit pays off well if the lens has a record of sharp & soft copies and you happen to rent a sharp copy.

 

[Derrel]

I downloaded 46 sample images and I just reviewed them in a slide show, twice through. My impression is that at wide apertures, the lens has a lot of longitudinal chromatic aberration...like the Canon 85/1.2-L and 50/1.2-L suffer from. As in a LOT of it--easily visible magenta and green fringing, depending on if the area is in front of, or behind, the focused distance. This is not something I particularly like. At smaller f/stops, like f/8, the lens looks very,very nice on landscapes. Most of the images I downloaded were portraits and street scenes. The bokeh quality is not that good...it's not "pretty" or "elegant"...instead, it's what I call "color-fringe-y" and just average. It's not a pretty imager, like say the Canon 135/2 or the Nikkor 200/2 or even the old Nikkor 85/1.4 AF-D.

Here is a screen cap of the files I downloaded and reviewed. Nikkor 58mm f1.4 SAMPLES REVIEWED.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

Look at the shot of the two men shooting photos, or the shot of the black Nikon Df (12284844934_efa59f32fd_o). Uggg...the CA in these just ruins it for me. This lens is not a particularly "pretty" imager...it's just very average. Which is a shame.

 

[fjrabon]

One thing I always try to take into account with super expensive gear is that most samples you see, the rest of the chain will also be much better than your setup too. They usually have: better body, better photography skills, better post skills, etc.

To me, at that price point, I'm not buying unless I can very easily return it within at least a month.

In regard to the particular lens, I think it is unique, in a way that some people like and that some people hate. I'd never buy it, but I get that it does give a unique feel.

 

[tirediron]

I don't get this lens. I don't see any point in 58mm (as opposed to 50mm) and what is it about it that adds $1200 over the price tag of a 50mm 1.4G???? That's a $150/mm! I'm sure it's good glass, and of course we can always find fault with any peace of gear if we look, but I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would buy this.

 

[jenko]

I always have advocated renting glass you're serious about buying. Especially in this price range. It's much cheaper than dropping the dime on it, only to find it's not up to your expectations, then having to go through the hassle of selling it.

If you do rent it, and find you want to buy it, be sure to contact the rental outfit you got it from and ask about buying the one you have in your hand. The worse they can say is 'Sorry, no. We want it back'. This gambit pays off well if the lens has a record of sharp & soft copies and you happen to rent a sharp copy.

Thanks, good info. I'm definitely going to rent it first. Then if I totally fall in love with it, I can see about buying the copy. Lensrentals.com lets you buy it if you like it, although I have never used the company before.

 

[480sparky]

I don't get this lens. I don't see any point in 58mm (as opposed to 50mm) and what is it about it that adds $1200 over the price tag of a 50mm 1.4G???? That's a $150/mm! I'm sure it's good glass, and of course we can always find fault with any peace of gear if we look, but I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would buy this.

It could be the primary design feature is f/1.4 and it turns out that an oddball FL like 58mm works out best.

 

[jenko]

I downloaded 46 sample images and I just reviewed them in a slide show, twice through. My impression is that at wide apertures, the lens has a lot of longitudinal chromatic aberration...like the Canon 85/1.2-L and 50/1.2-L suffer from. As in a LOT of it--easily visible magenta and green fringing, depending on if the area is in front of, or behind, the focused distance. This is not something I particularly like. At smaller f/stops, like f/8, the lens looks very,very nice on landscapes. Most of the images I downloaded were portraits and street scenes. The bokeh quality is not that good...it's not "pretty" or "elegant"...instead, it's what I call "color-fringe-y" and just average. It's not a pretty imager, like say the Canon 135/2 or the Nikkor 200/2 or even the old Nikkor 85/1.4 AF-D.

Here is a screen cap of the files I downloaded and reviewed. Nikkor 58mm f1.4 SAMPLES REVIEWED.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

Look at the shot of the two men shooting photos, or the shot of the black Nikon Df (12284844934_efa59f32fd_o). Uggg...the CA in these just ruins it for me. This lens is not a particularly "pretty" imager...it's just very average. Which is a shame.

Thanks so much, Derrel. Very useful to me. I would be using it for portraiture. I'm not much of a landscape photographer. I may still rent a copy of this lens, though, because I'll always wonder about it if I don't! I think you are dead on with the CA, though, just from viewing some of those files up close.