Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 vs. Sigma 50/1.4 Art vs. Nikkor 58/1.4G vs. Nikkor 50/1.4G vs. Nikkor 50/1.8G

Summary

First, here’s an overview of the results and the tech specs:

 
Zeiss
Otus 55/1.4
Sigma
50/1.4 Art
Nikkor
58/1.4G
Nikkor
50/1.4G
Nikkor
50/1.8G
Weight w/ caps982 g838 g411 g302 g208 g
Weight of hood66 g43 g30 g23 g23 g
Filter thread77 mm77 mm72 mm58 mm58 mm
Gasket at bajonetnonoyesyesyes
Internal focusingyesyesyesno (but...)no (but...)
Minimum
focusing
distance
0.5 m0.4 m0.58 m0.45 m0.45 m
AF Speedinfinitely slow (MF)goodgoodgoodgood
MF turn from
close to infinity
(clockwise)
12:00 to 8:3012:00 to 3:3012:00 to 4:0012:00 to 5:3012:00 to 3:30
Focus
breathing
quite somequite somevery strongvery strongvery strong
Focus shiftnoneaveragenonestrongaverage
Diaphragm Blades99997
Minimum aperturef/16f/16f/16f/16f/16
Sunstarsacceptableclearacceptableacceptablevery clear
Perceived
sharpness
wide open
(@ 100%
magnification)
perfectly
sharp
(almost)
perfectly
sharp
very blurryacceptableacceptable
Vignetting
(wide open)
strong, with
very dark corners
averageaveragestrongstrong
Bokeh qualitygreat,
see page 2
great,
see page 2
great,
see page 2
great,
see page 2
great,
see page 2
Bokeh Light Ballssoft
onion ring
pattern
smoothstronger
onion ring
pattern
smoothsmooth
Lateral CA+++++-----+
Comanonemoderatemoderatestrongmoderate
Sensitivity to
bright light
outside the frame
averageaverageaverageaverageaverage
Hood effectiveness++++++++++
Sensitivity to
bright light
within the frame
averageaverageaverageaverage
(stronger flare
tendency with
the sun, though)
average
Included
accessories
Hood, capsHood, caps,
soft lens case
Hood, caps, pouchHood, caps, pouchHood, caps, pouch
Street price€ 3,499
US$ 3,990
€ 949
US$ 949
€ 1,599
US$ 1,699
€ 339
US$ 429
€ 179
US$ 219

Please note: The images on this page do not resemble the size relations between the lenses. The arrangement on the first page of this review does.

Zeiss Otus 55mm/1.4

The choice is simple: If you care about fast and reliable focusing, forget the Zeiss. Otherwise it’s the best, but very heavy and with strong vignetting wide open that you will notice especially when you take studio-style shots composed across the full frame. The bokeh is creamy, the sharpness allows you to capture incredible detail even wide open – if the detail is in focus, of course. There is no focus shift, and since you’re on manual focus, this is a feature you need even more than with AF. In case you care, it also doesn’t have any coma. Summing this lens up would surely be a good opportunity to righteously use the attribute “flawless” – if you put aside the slight onion ring issue with bokeh light balls and the sunstar average-ness, there are no optical mistakes, really. This optical flawlessness comes at the price of… a high price, high weight and size, and, most annoyingly, the missing AF. Aesthetically, this lens is a bit of an I’m-not-so-sure-about-it item for me: The trumpet-style (conical) shape of the end ensures that the edges will most likely be worn very quickly, and the sheer size of it lets your camera look more paparazzo than fine art. Then again, I guess many people enjoy this.

Sigma 50mm/1.4 Art

Aesthetically, this lens is pretty much the exact opposite of the Zeiss: a very clear and reduced “linear” design instead of the loud honking with fat yellow markings. The Sigma produces (almost) the same outstanding results but for less than a third of the price, and with added autofocus. The sharpness is as great as that of the Zeiss, simply stunning, the longitudinal CA is *slightly* more visible than with the Zeiss. But it’s also slightly more compact and not as heavy, although still not an accessory for travelling light. Focus shift, however, is as bad as with “average” 50s, so you need to calibrate or “fine-tune” your autofocus for f/2.8 in order not to have out-of-focus results at f/4, especially. This means, in turn, that you’ll be sacrificing a tad of perfect focusing wide open. However, results in practice are not as bad as chart testing suggests, so this shouldn’t turn you down. The bokeh wide open is beautiful – just like that of the other lenses. The hood offers the best protection of all lenses against light sources even close to the frame. Haptical quality is excellent, although it’s not true for all parts of the barrel that they feel like metal. If you want a near-perfect 50, here it is. Or, put differently: This is simply the best 50mm/1.4 lens available with autofocus.

Nikon 58mm/1.4G

The Nikon 58/1.4G is a joke. It’s light, but big and clunky, although the not-big lens elements inside don’t really tell you why. I’m suspecting it’s for the looks, so it can be marketed for 1,600 Euros or 1,700 USD. There are only two good things about this lens: There is virtually no focus shift, and the bokeh is very slightly more creamy wide open – but you might also call it “blurry”. Because that’s what the things in focus are with this lens. And of what use is a lens that won’t let you distinguish bokeh from those things in focus? Seriously, though: The main point of an f/1.4 lens is to be able to shoot it wide open, and this is exactly where this product is a spectacular fail for anyone who needs to use the photos for something, say: clients. Usable results start only at f/2.8 – which is unfortunately exactly the point where the bokeh starts looking the same as that of the other Nikkors. No matter how many people see “magic” in this lens, the most magical thing about it is that someone would actually pay the insane price for this “Oh-shit-we-need-something-expensive-in-the-50-mm-range-too-can-we-quickly-design-something” lens. Excuse my sarcasm, I’m exaggerating a little – but after all, Nikon started it. Oh, I forgot: The hood does an excellent job.

Don’t agree? Good! Please read this.

Nikon 50mm/1.4G

The Nikkor 50/1.4G is a classic, and you will find 500 zillion reviews of this lens. Sharpness wide open is, well, not very sharp, which is normal for this lens design, but it’s absolutely sufficient. In “normal” photography, i.e. if you don’t look at your photos at 100% on screen, you won’t notice this very much. But if your camera plays in the resolution league of the D800 and friends, you may. One sad issue is that there seems to be a lot of sample variation with this lens: I’ve used many different ones already, and many were blurrier wide open than the one I tested now. Also, in the past, two out of three 1.4Gs were very sensitive to bright light within or slightly outside the frame, producing ugly and strong haze. The one I tested now wasn’t. One thing that seems to be constant, though, is the strong longitudinal chromatic aberration (purple and green fringing of out-of-focus areas). It is also very prone to coma. The bokeh of the 1.4 is often portrayed to be smoother than that of its little cousin, brother or whatever you wanna call it. However, this is only true up to f/2.0, and the difference is indeed marginal, and I’d doubt you’d be able to identify the lens from the bokeh without any meticulous A-B comparison. Do decide for your own, check out page 2 for a side-by-side comparison.

Nikon 50mm/1.8G

Nikkor 50mm/1.8GThe Nikkor 50/1.8G fixes most of the aberration issues of the 50/1.4G, meaning: longitudinal CA is reduced dramatically, so is coma, and the focus shift is only very moderate. At the same time, it is cheaper, and very light, which is not cool for people who need heavy equipment in order to feel like they know about quality, but very good for people who care about not hauling around tons of stuff. It is sharper than the average sample of a 1.4G, but if you’re lucky and have a good sample of the 1.4G, both lenses will be just as sharp. If you don’t want to waste any time ordering and returning bad samples of the 1.4G, get this one, it’s excellent. And light. And cheap. Or did I already say that? The bokeh is a little (and I really mean: a little) clearer than the other lenses until f/2.0, but at f/2.8, it’s smoother. In any case, it’s pretty. The bokeh, I mean. Both classic Nikkors have in common that the focussing happens outside the lens but within the lens barrel, meaning the lens doesn’t get longer and shorter when focusing, but there’s still something moving in and out. Just get a high-quality neutral filter (B+W 007) as a front cover, and you will have “internal focusing”, too. You need to calculate something like 50 Euros/USD for this, but you wouldn’t wanna ruin the high quality of this lens with a flare-y filter.

Good dealers!

If you’re living in Germany and consider getting the Zeiss or the Sigma Art, check out AC-Foto, this dealer is absolutely the bomb. It’s one of the, if not the cheapest, the shop is great and they have very fast delivery and excellent service.

Speaking of delivery, Calumet is extremely fast, too. They process your order within nothing. My order was shipped within an hour! WTF!

That’s it, thanks for reading! Maybe this helps someone.

 

50 thoughts on “Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 vs. Sigma 50/1.4 Art vs. Nikkor 58/1.4G vs. Nikkor 50/1.4G vs. Nikkor 50/1.8G

  1. Nick

    Thanks for putting your time and efforts into this amazing comparison. It would be even greater if you could compare the Art lens against his older twin, the Sigma 50mm HSM. I own a Nikon mounted version and it is one of my favourite lens. In this review, it looks to be on par and even brighter than the Art version, and there is a slight back focus which could explain the potentiaĺ loss of sharpness.

    http://www.slrlounge.com/head2head-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-vs-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm/

  2. Flow Post author

    Nick, thanks for your reply! I *knew* someone would complain about this or any other lens (wait until people ask for the Nikkor D) missing in the comparison. I just needed to stop somewhere. But I can tell you: I had the old Sigma as well for a month, and it’s NO way on par with the Art, the Art is really a new generation, and I don’t know what you’re seeing with the sharpness, but it’s a league that just hasn’t existed before (for 35mm).

  3. Hussain

    Very nice and neat comparison. I loved the the X vs. Y lens layout :) I honestly can’t see anyone justifying the Otus since the Sigma is almost just as sharp, has AF, much more affordable and I didn’t see anything special about the Zeiss rendering, and I am a Zeiss fan and user. I should say though the Nikon 58 1.4g has a much nicer rendering, it’s not very pronounced here in the test but from images I’ve seen it’s something to consider, although on the expense of resolution.

  4. Flow Post author

    Thanks, Hussain!

    Yes, there are aspects where the Zeiss is just different, and there’s sure reasons pro and against it.

  5. Nick

    Well i didnt have the chance to compare the Art version with my regular HSM copy and I know that the comparison in the link doesnt show full sized samples, but when looking at them and their exif data, it seems that the older lens (77mm thread) gathers more light, even at faster speed than the new one, and the sharpness (back focus put aside) seems to be on par.I really wish someone could compare them properly, do you own a copy of the older HSM perhaps ?

  6. Flow Post author

    No unfortunately not, but I do still have some test images here that are too ugly to post them anywhere. As I said, it’s a different league. This is not to say that the old 50 is a bad lens, just not “on par” as you’re guessing, at least not concerning the sharpness wide open. The images in the link are just a nice illustration that a sharp lens doesn’t make a difference for an overall image. You will be able to see this sharpness difference only if you have an image where this matters – and if you need to look at it big. Check out the other article on this. But if you’re really interested, why not just order the new one and test it for yourself and compare, and if you don’t like it, send it back.

  7. Nick

    I live in Canada and as far as i know, the lens is hard to find here, even harder to return as they can only be preordered. “Ugly” seems a very strong qualification, mine still pulls out superb images either on my D600 or D300. And is extremely sharp wide open.

  8. Flow Post author

    Nick, you got me wrong with the “ugly” part: I was referring to the content of the test images I have, not the image quality. The HSM is a great lens, don’t worry. Maybe by now, the Art is available without preorder and you can compare it and see if it makes any difference to you or you want to stick with the HSM.

  9. Glenn

    Thank you. This is absoluletly the best lens review/comparison I have seen, hands down. Kudos to the whay you used the sliders to immedialy visualize the lens differences.

  10. Flow Post author

    Enrico, thanks for your hint. First of all, I don’t want to buy a 1,600 Euro prime lens and then need to have it adjusted because QC wasn’t taken seriously. Anyway, I’d love to see some results, so just in case you want to help: Click. Thanks!

  11. Udo

    Hi, and thanks for this impressive test. As an owner of the Otus and Sigma lens, I totally agree to your results. The Sigma is wonderful, the Zeiss a little bit better, and both are in a different league than the others.

  12. Christobella

    Well done on a great comparison, the clearest and most informative that I’ve come across. The split-screen tool on the images works really well for direct A/B comparisons. More please!

  13. Alex

    Great comparison, thanks! I recently purchased the 50mm art, and also own a 35mm art, as well as a Zeiss 135mm apo f2. The Sigmas are amazing values, although their construction leaves something to be desired. The rear barrel came lose on my 35mm art, twice. I’m hoping the 50mm won’t have the same issue. The Zeiss makes them feels like toys in terms of build quality. I would pay a few hundred more for the Sigma if it was all metal. The plastic hood gets worn over time and doesn’t click in the same on my 35mm. The Zeiss is as good as the day I bought it. I wish Zeiss would put in AF in these fast lenses, might be worth the 4k then.

  14. Robert Ash

    This is fantastic work. Thorough, meticulous, well thought through. I wanted to buy the 50mm Sigma Art but now I have a lot better comfort level with that decision. I’ve bookmarked your site for future reference, it’s outstanding. Not only that, you have world-class partner sites (Uwe Steinmuller, Rob Galbraith, etc.). Luminous Landscape and Cambridge in Colour would be worthy additions. Thanks again for the amazing work! It’s a real blessing to all of us that you take the time to do such a thorough job.

  15. Flow Post author

    Robert, thanks very much for your extremely nice comment! Good to know this helped you. All the best!

  16. Frank

    Excellent review and comparison. One of the best I’ve seen. Well done.

    A couple of comments.

    1. The Otus/Art sharpness test shows a very different rendering of parts of the microphone that might show greater microcontrast, fewer aberrations with the Otus. Am I misinterpreting.

    2. With the Otus, I see some shots that show incredible clarity/readability of the scene both wide open and fully closed at f16. The lack of distortion and the more apochromatic nature of the lens may be responsible for that. IOW focus blur wide open and diffraction fully closed are subjectively attenuated because of the lens rendering. Have you seen that?

    3. One of the key features of the Otus, confirmed by others, is that it is more nearly apochromatic than just about all other 135mm lenses. I see an increased purity of color that behaves very smoothly in processing. Would there be any way to test that?

    4. Impossible to test, I think, but in general processing with the Otus is much more linear than with my other lenses. This allows processing to be more precise.

    So, my overall question is, am I kidding myself about these qualities of the Otus, which are not necessarily apparent in all images? Or are they based on its unique characteristics?

  17. Flow Post author

    Thanks for your feedback, Frank! Your questions:
    1. Yes, this is also what I see, but it’s a very small difference, I think.

    2. No, to be honest, I haven’t. But it wouldn’t exactly surprise me, as except for the sunstars and the manual focusing (and the size), the lens is indeed absolutely flawless, as I wrote.

    3. I don’t know, sorry. To be honest, I’m a little bit against these “myth-style” statements like “purity of color”. What’s that supposed to be exactly? Apo is a marketing term and it simply means that it’s optimized to have the same focus plane for all wavelenghts. This doesn’t imply a better color rendering overall. I didn’t see any better or more “pure” rendering, and I checked with the Color Checker, too. The other lenses deliver great results, too.

    4. What’s “more linear” or “more precise” processing supposed to mean? Whatever it is, if you can define it, you can test it, surely. :-)

    Overall question: Except for the latter two terms, I don’t think you’re kidding yourself there. Anyways, be careful not to extrapolate your positive emotions for the thing to variables that are beyond judgement. It’s exactly this part that I was trying to avoid in the review, too.

    All the best!

  18. Tuomas Puukko

    Check your terminology – you wrote “lateral chromatic aberration (purple and green fringing of out-of-focus areas)”. That is longitudinal chromatic aberration, not lateral.

    Lateral CA is separation of colors towards the edges of image circle. You may see red & green-blue colors apart when you look in the corners, esp. with wide angle optics and digital cameras. Stopping down doesn’t remove this aberration.

    Then there’s axial chromatic aberration – it’s the chromatic equivalent of spherical aberration. Color halos around bright areas. Spherical aberration disappears when stopping down, so does axial CA.

  19. Dux

    I hardly disagree with you about 58mm 1.4G. It’s fantastic lens with beautiful out of focus rendering and gorgeous colors and contrast especially designed for Nikon sensors. This lens are not intended to be the sharpest. They are made to give us best overall output we can get on reasonably high price. I said reasonably regarding to Otus.
    On my opinion all that hype about sharpness at f1.4 is nonsense because all of this lenses are more that sharp enough to can be used for professional work at f1.4. You can notice sharpness difference only if you pixel peep photos at 100%. Who need that in real professional work? I don’t know for such a photographer including myself.
    BUT things that you can ALWAYS notice is bokeh and overall rendering quality no matter on zoom factor.

    Regards
    Dux

  20. Alwyn

    Thanks a great deal for this thorough comparison. Look forward to more of your articles.

    As great as the Sigma Art is, it is simply too heavy to be used as my 3rd lens (the 24-70 & 70-200 are my main lenses).

    I’ll just buy the 50 f/1.8G

  21. Flow Post author

    Thanks for your feedback, Alwyn! Yes, you have to be serious about the prime in order to want to carry around something like the Sigma or the Zeiss.

  22. Karl

    vielen dank für den wertvollen und wirklich brauchbaren, anzeigenkundenunabhängigen vergleichstest. dabei fand ich auch die antwort auf mein problem, mit dem ich mich seit 2 jahren rumschlage. stets dachte ich, die unschärfe vieler meiner fotos liegt am autofocus der D800, erst hier lernte ich, dass es eindeutig am focus shift liegt. dieses problem wird ansonsten überall verschwiegen, es müsste eigentlich zu den standardtests zählen. mich wunderte stets wie es sein könne, dass bilder, die im sucher gerade noch scharf waren, durch den auslösevorgang plötzlich in der schärfe nach hinten gelegt werden. ab sofort verzichte ich auf die sweet spot blenden und auf das nikkor 50 1.4G. die ausschussrate wird sich aufgrund des ausgezeichneten berichts mit sicherheit verringern. DANKE!

  23. Mike

    Overall, a great review. However you exhibit some heavy bias against the 58 and positively towards the Sigma. The Sigma, no doubt, is an amazing value proposition. Sigma has also publicly stated that they are aiming to compete with the Otus standard of optics. Nikon has stated the opposite about the 58; that it was an ode to their 58 1.2 Noct where the design priority wasn’t for sharpeness but for overall rendering and out of focus blur. I’m not sure why the 58 continually gets comments about its price. Much more so than the Otus considering it lacks AF. The price of the Zeiss is a joke. (I’m not sure why someone, personally speaking, would spend $5000 on a sub 200mm lens for 35mm format camera. If I can afford a $5000 lens, I would rather put it in front of a medium format sensor). But I digress. Built into most of Nikon’s pricing is a far broader and deeper reaching support network. Nikon has regional offices and service centres all over the world, Sigma operates through distributors.

    I have used the 58 for over a year now and it has its nuances. It doesn’t do well at short distances. Precisely where most of your tests are at. At mid range it excels… far sharper and better bokeh than the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 I’ve owned. One comparison you didn’t talk about is weight with respect to handling. The Sigma is close to the weight of a D800 series and heavier a D750 or D600 series body. To better balance it out, you need a $300-$400 OEM grip. Coming closer to the price of the 58. The 58, on body is very easy to hold for long period of times without having to fight a front heavy camera/lens combo. Sigma and Zeiss have gone all out for critical sharpness at the expense, in my opinion, of other factors. Nikon’s approach has been about balance. The 58 does extremely well on my D810. Far greater than your review suggests.

  24. Flow Post author

    Mike, thanks very much for your comment! Glad you’re happy with the 58G. I think I’ve said everything about my verdict on the 58G on a 36MP camera now, so I can save on words here. :-) (The weight was mentioned too, I think.)

  25. Martin

    Hello,

    thanks a lot for sharing this detailed review. Being a wedding & portrait enthusiast / semi-pro located in Germany, I am right now looking for a new “character portrait lens” for a lot of upcoming weddings this season. I have spent many hours of investigation about the 58mm 1.4, Otus and 50mm Sigma art. I own a Nikon D700, Df and a bunch of Nikon glass such as 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.4 and the 2.8-Zoom-Trinity 14-24/24-70/70-200. However, the most liked pictures by my clients come from my 50mm f1.2 Ais manual focus lens. As the manual focus is nothing suited for critical moments during weddings, I was anxious about the 58mm.

    I was trying to understand why so many portrait and wedding photographers scream for the 58mm f1.4 lens, wheres all the test data including yours does not proof this lens to be any good.

    In my opinion the key to this is the extreme field curvature on this lens. The “focus-plane” on the 58mm is not a planar surface, but a strongly 3-dimensioanlly curved surface. Shaprest points on the image will be at different distances to image sensor plane depending on their location within the picture frame (center to border). Anything on the surface will be rendered sharp. Anything not on the surface will be blurred.

    http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1660/cat/12

    has done a great job illustrating the shape on which the image will appeard sharp. When testshooting the lens on flat 2D-charts or brick walls 90° to camera, this lens will fail miserably (as stated by Nikon themselves). But when shooting portraits located in the viewfinder center, the sharpness surface will gently “follow” the shape of head, rendering a greater area of the face sharp whilst putting parts next to the head strongly out-of-focus. This is creating this 3D-look or “character” which people are referring to. In my opinion this was clearly the design intention by Nikon. The Leica Summilux 50 1.4 (another 3000k€ – “character”-lens) shows a similar behavior wide open like the Nikon with similar curvature. (btw: Nikon very well knows how to design sharp lenses, e.g. the 14-24 which is sharp straight from f2.8 across the entire frame)

    Zeiss with the Otus has chosen a different design approach, where they designed the lens to perfectly render flat 2D images (test charts), sharp across the entire image area, even at f1.4.

    So the Otus does a great job if you are into studio beauty / fashion/portrait or architecture photography, your subject is rather far away from the camera, and when your clients demand ultimate sharpness at no compromise (for skyscraper-size ads etc).

    Clients booking a wedding or portrait photographer want rather artistic / pleasing look of images with a lot of bokeh and character shot wide open. No smartphone or compact camera can give this, so they hire someone with a “good camera”. The pictures end up in wedding albums, on facebook and maybe canvas prints, Pictures have to be sharp, but clients don’t want to see every pore on the brides skin. Thus ultimate sharpness is not utmost priority.

    So I think that the 2 lenses are extremly different, aimed at different types of photographers.

    Many users of the 58mm talk about a “learning curve” needed until they fully appreciate the advantages of the 58mm. In my opinion this is “finding the sweet spots” of the curved focus surface.

    Unfortunately, your bokeh test was setup to not hit on that “sweet spot. Focussing on “555″ on the image border, with the model’s face fully “bokehd-out” is not what this lens was made for.
    With a modified setup focussing on the 3D-face in the image center and then comparing a blurred “555″ and background would have shown the strength for which the lens has been designed.

    I have some pictures to show the effect of field curvature, which I would like to share with other users, but can’t insert in the comment section here. Maybe you will share them with your audience.

    For my type of photography, I will give the 58mm f1.4 a chance on the next weddings, since it seems to be able to produce exactly what my wedding-clients are willing to pay me for…

  26. Flow Post author

    Martin, thanks very much for your extensive and (for a change) friendly feedback on the 58/1.4 issue. That’s an interesting feature you’re pointing out there. I can well imagine that there are applications where the lens will produce interesting results. Unfortunately, no one has so far been willing to go beyond the usual critique and e.g. provide thoughts like the one you provided.

    I’d still be very interested for someone to provide some direct A/B comparison as described in my “invitation”, it should resolve a lot of the points everyone is argueing about and illustrate exactly the strengths of this lens.

    Anyway, I’m glad you’re happy with it and producing results your clients love!

  27. PIERRE ANTOINE

    Bonjour à tous. Incroyables débats sur les qualités d’objectifs Zeiss, Nikon et Sigma. Je possède le Nikon D810 avec le 58 mm AF-F G f/1,4. C’est le top en jour et en nuit bien sûr. Oui il faut s’approprier le matériel, le comprendre et jouer avec. Après on peut dire si oui ou non il vous correspond. Les calculs de tests, mires ect ne correspondent pas à notre utilisation qui diffère d’un photographe çà l’autre. Je ne pense pas que Nikon ou Zeiss fassent des optiques pour la rigolade. Quant à Sigma il faut se calmer on est pas dans la cours des grands. Zeiss et Nikon ne peuvent sortir des objectifs sans qualité il y a trop de finances derrière. Ce serait catastrophique pour eux de sortir des merdes. Les gens critiquent sans connaître et SURTOUT SANS FAIRE DE PHOTOS. Amusez-vous ou travailler si possible en photos. Faites vous plaisir chercher tout ce que l’on peut tirer des optiques. Je suis hyper satisfait de ce 58 mm f/1,4. J’ai fait aussi avec le Zeiss oui douceur du point, hyper qualité mais non autofocus. C’est un choix. J’ai quitté toute une série Ais pour de l’autofocus débrayable en 1,4 Nikon (35,58, 85 mm). J’ai un Zeiss 28 mm f/2,8 et Zeiss 100 mm Macro f/2 et c’est aussi le super top. J’ai un 70/200 mm f/2,8 Nikon aussi le top. J’ai le Nikon 14 mm f/2,8 autofocus fantastique. A savoir la différence avec le Zeiss 15 mm f/2,8 manuel.

  28. Flow Post author

    Pierre, thanks for your comment. However, I don’t really see what your point is, especially in relation to my review.

  29. PIERRE ANTOINE

    Bonjour Débit, ok on est d’accord. Merci moi je suis hyper content du 58 mm f/1,4 et tout va bien.

  30. Daniel

    This is a wonderful comparison. I was looking for a Sigma vs Zeiss test, and with regards to them, considering their characteristics, I agree 100% with your conclusions. On the hurt butts over the Nikon 58, this is a rational discussion and people should provide samples to back their comments. The line between brand loyalty and blind loyalty is pretty thin. Martin’s post makes quite a bit of sense. The Pentax FA Ltds were also designed with a certain look in mind. I own a 43 f1.9 and the images it produces have a certain look that I really enjoy. That said, the 58 1.4 Nikkor is massively overpriced. Nikon is trolling the industry with it.

  31. Guido

    Thanks for this wonderful Review. In general I share your conclusion. Personally, I’m happy with my Nikkor 1.8/50, it does what I want how I want it and if necessary I can manage around its downsides and use it mainly at f2.8 for portraits on my APS-C Nikons.
    We must not forget: the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, there’s always a faster car, nicer clothes, sharper lenses, more beautiful women – whatever. All these lenses have their justification and it is wonderful to have the choice. And sharpness is only one aspect of lens quality, often overrated. I have many wonderful sharp pictures made with “undiscussable unsharp lenses”.
    By the way: have you read Nasim Mansurows (photographylife.com) review of the 1.4/58? For portraiture I completely agree what he wrote, we are not in a competition to capture every pore as sharp as possible, it is about the mood of the entire picture, and this obviously is the strength of the 1.4/58. Pardon me, but your pictures in the review could not show this.

    Thanks again for the Review. And by the way: the comparison technology is fantastic, please go on. Maybe a 35mm comparison incl. Sigma Art and DX 1.8/35?

  32. Don Jester

    Every report I read about the Otus and Art say the same thing, excellent. But a couple of points I would like to make: for one thing, I NEVER shoot wide open, so sharpness at 1.4 borders on irrelevant to me. In various tests, I have seen lenses which were inferior wide open actually outperform at f/8. Another point is regarding sample variation. I recently tested two identical lenses and found one to be FAR better than the other. I know it would be a lot of trouble to start testing 3-4 exmaples of every lens, and QC is high for the upper end, but sample variation does exist. When Linhof used to test lenses, they found up to 30% variation in same make and model of lens right out of the factory, and they were testing Zeiss, Schneider, and Rodenstock at the time. Also, an independent tester of large format lenses found some huge differences from lens to lens. Finally, and I know this review is not about price, but when we get up into the $5000. dollar range on lenses, I have to start thinking about other formats, and even about film. I know I won’t beat a 36 MP camera with 35 mm, but for $5000., I can buy a used Super Technika (or perhaps even Master) 4×5, WITH 3 APO lenses, and crush all digital. Part of this is the way I shoot- 90% or more of my shots are outdoors with static subjects, I put the camera on a tripod, take time to set up, etc. Autofocus is almost a joke to me, as I am usually working with hyperfocal distances anyway, at whatever aperture I can use for the depth of field required without reducing quality due to diffraction. I understand that this test is not about that, but I feel I must interject that, for me at least, it is not worth $5000. to get a lens which is better at 1.4 and 2.0, when I shoot at f/8 in small format and often use f/16 to f/32 with the longer focal lengths in large format.

  33. Flow Post author

    Don thanks for your feedback and your efforts to describe what matters to you with those lenses and what doesn’t. Always good to know it helps people.

  34. Lou Jost

    There is something very special about a fast lens that is sharp wide open, which has not been touched on here. For high-magnification macro work, diffraction limits resolution. So lenses for such work must be used at wide apertures, to avoid diffraction. Modern focus-stacking software can combine these images, with little depth of field, into final images with whatever depth of field we want.

    This Sigma lens, and the Otus, open up new possibilities, if they are sharp in the center at f/1.4 or f/2. These lenses would be able to avoid diffraction at higher magnifications than previous lenses, which have to be stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 or even more.

    Have you or anyone else tried these lenses in macro applications? It would be especially interesting to see how they behave reversed on the camera, with a long extension. The Sigma and Otus might break new ground on that front…

  35. Flow Post author

    No, I haven’t, otherwise it would have been part of the review. But I bet you can find information on this rather specific topic on the web, e.g., in one of the usual suspects of the discussion forums.

  36. Peter

    Thank you very much for all the work! This is an example of a really useful/helpful review and was a pleasure to read. (Even the split-samples were useable on the iPad ;-)!)
    I’m a (less ;-)) happy owner now of the Nikkor 58; knowing that apart from the Otus there is a less expensive and better option out there. That in combination with the USB dock to calibrate it, might make it a winner.
    (If I could be sure my D800 and D4 would want to focus it correctly, of course :-(. Except from my D700, none of my Nikon bodies seem to like any of my 1.4 primes. But that’s probably only me having these focus issues ;-)…)

    Grtz,
    P.

Leave your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Help to fight Spam:

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>