Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
This depends on what the photographer plans to shoot and how he wants to allocate his equipment budget . The 58/1.4 produces a different rendering from the 50/1.4 ..which one is better depends on the subject and the aesthetic the photographer is after .I think he nailed it with these comments: it's not really sharp enough for portraits wide open; it's got wonderful bokeh compared to the 50/1.4; it's better than my copy of the 50/1.4G, but I can't say it's $1200 better.
I don't particularly like that shot - the DoF is too narrow and there's no background to frame the subject or give it context. The background doesn't add or create negative space. Such a shallow DoF IMO is a gimmick comparable to HDR, grunge processing, tone mapping, vignetting, etc. All of these can be useful tools when applied with subtlety, to enhance an image. But they can't really make one to begin with, at least not to my eye. Once the "effect" is visible (and they can be spotted from a mile) it takes over.Greenspan looks bulbous even in person
I agree and these figure from Roger Cicala compare the Otus to the Nikon at 1.4.. the figures are for centre ,average and corner average,,I agree Roger. On the one hand if you want AF and smooth bokeh, then this new 58 is the ticket. Problem is for guys like you and me and everybody else that owns the 50/1.4G and has seen the magic signature from a 50 Lux or even the unique look form the manual 50/1.2 AIS, it becomes a tougher calculus to justify this one IMHO.
Arguably the OUTUS at over 2x the price seems a better value to me -- at least I see a look that is more "unique" than Nikon's new 58.