It's on its way!!!

[Jack]

I would love to know if the 50 1.4 has coma aberrations, which will really only show up in night work.

I will try and test this at the earliest opportunity, which may be a while.

The Nikon 24 1.4 had great bokeh, (still not sure what front bokeh is)

Rear and front bokeh are terms I use to describe the behavior of bokeh behind the plane of focus separate from in front of the plane of focus. Most of the time, the two behave differently, and while it is relatively common for a lens with a many-bladed aperture to render decent rear bokeh, achieving smooth front bokeh along with good rear is a taller order.

 

[Paul2660]

Jack,

Thanks for the info, I will have to start looking for that in the future. I will be interested in the coma aberration testing when you get it done.

Paul

 

[Lars]

Rear and front bokeh are terms I use to describe the behavior of bokeh behind the plane of focus separate from in front of the plane of focus. Most of the time, the two behave differently, and while it is relatively common for a lens with a many-bladed aperture to render decent rear bokeh, achieving smooth front bokeh along with good rear is a taller order.

Yep it's all about the light paths in the cone of light formed behind the lens. Often when a lens manufacturer prioritizes smoothness in rear defocus, the front defocus gets "busy", and vice versa. A good example is the hot-edge rear defocus highlights produced by the 50/1.4D and 50/1.8D wide open, as well as a number of other 90's Nikon designs. The worst one I have seen is the 85/1.8D. On the other end of the spectrum, the Sigma 50/1.4 (non-ART) renders beautifully wide open.

This is easy to test yourself: Find a pinpoint light source such as the power LED on a computer. Focus closer or further away to defocus, and underexpose so the light source goes not get clipped. Look at how the intensity varies over the defocused highlight. Compare front and rear defocus, center vs. corner, and wide open vs. stopped down. Also compare different focal distances. There - now you can measure bokeh.

 

[mark1958]

I got my Sigma 50mm Art yesterday. I had also sold one of my D800s and purchased a D810. As a point of interest, I started to calibrate my lenses using MicroFocus. With all 4 of the nikon lenses, I found they were tack on and did not require any adjustment but the 50mm Art needed a +8 adjustment.

In my tests below i used LV-- mirror lockup and manual focus on a tripod.

I compared the Sigma 50mm Art against the Zeiss 50mm 2.0 Makro and the Nikon 85 1.4 G. I know many people are not big fans of the Zeiss but I really like it. It is sharp light and can focus up close -- I also like the warmer tones-- it is really nice as a travel lens.

My first comparisons were comparing the two 50mm lenses. In my comparisons, I did some general sharpness testing and bokeh rendering. First, I was really surprised that the Sigma was sharper in the center up until about f5.6 -8.0 when they became extremely close. The edges were always better (including distortion) with the Sigma but I guess i am not surprised since the Zeiss was designed as a makro. The center sharpness differences on their own were not a big deal to me. The zeiss is pretty darn sharp. I will say the bokeh was "nicer looking" with the Sigma as well even when the she scene shot at f2. Of course you get the extra f1.4 with the Sigma with provides even more "creamer" OOF backgrounds.

In terms of the NIkon 85mm 1.4--- I found that if you control for the same frame -- I could not say I liked the bokeh from one lens any better (f1.4). I still think that Nikon 85mm is an outstanding lens. I do not use it that often but I hate to sell it because when i do use it-- I really like the results. I do think the 50mm prime is a more useful focal length for me.

 

[Jack]

Mark, I'd echo what you say about both the Sigma and 85/1.4G -- they render very similarly, sharp with great oof character. The 28/1.4 asph is in that same league if you get a good copy. The 35 Art is in this class too, but I haven't used a 35 focal since I got the 28. As such, the 28/1.4, Art 50 and 85/1.4G are my goto trio.

PS: Very curious to hear (and see!) what you think of the D810!

 

[mark1958]

I think a 28mm focal length would be more useful with the 50mm in hand. So what is the major variation issues with the 28mm? Is it the flare or are there sharpness issues. I have read some folks don't like the flaring on the Nikkor 28mm 1.4.? In terms of the 85mm-- if i want to take that focal length out in the field, I tend to go with the 90mm TS.
In terms of the D810--- I pretty much in line with the consensus--- the IQ not much different. I do not like the beta CS6 raw converter. It tends to under saturate and the reds are a bit off. The new Nikon converter is a huge improvement over their previous software. The none IQ improvements are very nice-- rear LCD, shutter noise, iso 64, etc. I still not sure if the 1st curtain electronic shutter makes a huge difference but it sounds like in some scenarios it might.

Happy to meet up if you want to try it out.. !

Mark, I'd echo what you say about both the Sigma and 85/1.4G -- they render very similarly, sharp with great oof character. The 28/1.4 asph is in that same league if you get a good copy. The 35 Art is in this class too, but I haven't used a 35 focal since I got the 28. As such, the 28/1.4, Art 50 and 85/1.4G are my goto trio.

PS: Very curious to hear (and see!) what you think of the D810!

 

[Jack]

28 issues: the aspheric element was hand-ground in these, so in some it was sharpness -- due to either poor grind or decentering -- others were reported to have excessive flare, not sure why, and some apparently had both softness and flare. My guess is the flare came from internal element contamination of some kind -- it's a large lens with a lot of elements.

Would love to find a time to meet and share my 28 and your D810