The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Nikon 58mm 1.4 G with a Nikon Z6 - any experience?

robdeszan

Member
Hello all,

I am toying with the idea of getting the lens for my Z6. Not interested in the new Nikon S series; just sold the sigma for being too clinical as well.

I did see one video where the photographer mentioned focus hunting issues (mounted on a Z7 in that case) so I thought I would look for some more experiences or possible issues.

I've already gathered that it is not AF speed demon, but is it ok for moving objects?

Thanks!
Pat
 

Photon42

Well-known member
I do use the Z7 with the 58. It is not the fastest but good enough for shooting snaps with Face / Eye Detection of normal adults and aperture around 1.4-2.2.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
Hello all,

I am toying with the idea of getting the lens for my Z6. Not interested in the new Nikon S series; just sold the sigma for being too clinical as well.

I did see one video where the photographer mentioned focus hunting issues (mounted on a Z7 in that case) so I thought I would look for some more experiences or possible issues.

I've already gathered that it is not AF speed demon, but is it ok for moving objects?

Thanks!
Pat
What S lenses have you used? I use the 50mm 1.8 S with Z7 professionally and it's simply the best lens i've used in any camera. That includes MFD and Leica.
These low rez are from a recent shoot, but the Raw's are stunning in detail. I think the bokeh might be a tad smoother with a 58mm 1.4 G, but micro contrast and resolution go to the 50mm 1.8 S. Having weather resistant native Z lenses is great too, even when shooting in light rain. These are both from the 50mm 1.8 S. I also used the 85mm 1.4 G on the Z, but didn't like the rendering at all. Perhaps rent the 58mm 1.4 G and the FTZ first. Personally, I think the S lenses are so good that its brought the prices down considerably for used G glass. The 85mm 1.4 G did hunt a bit too.
 
Last edited:

robdeszan

Member
Hi thanks for sharing your experience.

I haven't used any Z lenses, the impressions are based around dpreview samples and overall look of the Z lenses I am getting from Flickr.

I use Zeiss zf lenses for personal work and sigma art lenses. I like the former but, unless you go for ethereal/artistic look they are not usable at wider apertures , hence the sigma art (35 50 85) trio that stems from using a DSLR with a USB dock for AF fine-tuning. The AF discrepancies put me off Nikon's AF lenses but this is no longer an issue with Z cameras so I was considering revisiting the G designs. Sigmas are are much sharper wide open (actually usable) but less dramatic (in my eyes) when it comes to rendering so it has always been a trade off of sorts.

Ideally, I would like to have one set of lenses. I also just traded my z6 for a z7 so the sensor is even more demanding. I was thinking 35mm 58mm 85mm G lenses series as they appear to be somewhere between the attractive Zeiss rendering (micro contrast) and sharpness of Sigmas. Obviously, the G lenses come with some inherent optical tradeoffs which, given the pixel count on the Z7, could prove problematic, hence the question.
 

Brando

New member
What S lenses have you used? I use the 50mm 1.8 S with Z7 professionally and it's simply the best lens i've used in any camera. That includes MFD and Leica.
These low rez are from a recent shoot, but the Raw's are stunning in detail. I think the bokeh might be a tad smoother with a 58mm 1.4 G, but micro contrast and resolution go to the 50mm 1.8 S. Having weather resistant native Z lenses is great too, even when shooting in light rain. These are both from the 50mm 1.8 S. I also used the 85mm 1.4 G on the Z, but didn't like the rendering at all. Perhaps rent the 58mm 1.4 G and the FTZ first. Personally, I think the S lenses are so good that its brought the prices down considerably for used G glass. The 85mm 1.4 G did hunt a bit too.
JDphoto, these results are really great looking for a 50 1.8, is this the natural focus fall off for this lens without any post processing bokeh added? If so this is quite a stunner of a lens and has piqued my interest. Would love to see more samples of what it can do :thumbup:
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Hello all,

I am toying with the idea of getting the lens for my Z6. Not interested in the new Nikon S series; just sold the sigma for being too clinical as well.

I did see one video where the photographer mentioned focus hunting issues (mounted on a Z7 in that case) so I thought I would look for some more experiences or possible issues.

I've already gathered that it is not AF speed demon, but is it ok for moving objects?

Thanks!
Pat
The 58 works very well on the Z6. So well that it work better on the Z bodys than on the D bodys. So if you want it and can afford it and understand it, get the 58 it is a keeper. I will soon give an article to GetDPI about the Z, some lenses (S-F-D) and video rig. In a month or so.

With the latest firmwares for the Z the 58 didn't hunt at all. Urban legend. It work perfect on moving objects even at f1.4

Just to ingnit your GaS :

 
Last edited:

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Hi thanks for sharing your experience.

I haven't used any Z lenses, the impressions are based around dpreview samples and overall look of the Z lenses I am getting from Flickr.

I use Zeiss zf lenses for personal work and sigma art lenses. I like the former but, unless you go for ethereal/artistic look they are not usable at wider apertures , hence the sigma art (35 50 85) trio that stems from using a DSLR with a USB dock for AF fine-tuning. The AF discrepancies put me off Nikon's AF lenses but this is no longer an issue with Z cameras so I was considering revisiting the G designs. Sigmas are are much sharper wide open (actually usable) but less dramatic (in my eyes) when it comes to rendering so it has always been a trade off of sorts.

Ideally, I would like to have one set of lenses. I also just traded my z6 for a z7 so the sensor is even more demanding. I was thinking 35mm 58mm 85mm G lenses series as they appear to be somewhere between the attractive Zeiss rendering (micro contrast) and sharpness of Sigmas. Obviously, the G lenses come with some inherent optical tradeoffs which, given the pixel count on the Z7, could prove problematic, hence the question.
This is fine observations. If weight and form factor aren’t a problem, one can mount any F mount lens via the FTZ adapter. Sigma lenses are very very huge and won’t focus as good as native Nikon lenses (S or G).
In the G line, as you can see above, the 58 is my personnal limit. The 105 or even the 85 G start to be too big. This is where the S Line kick in.

All the actual S lens spoil and will spoil photographers. They are extrem performers, easy to tame and very rewarding. All S lenses sports N nano coating. At many levels they are just as good as we can expect. For some, they might lack soul, might be just perfect... spoiling.

Hopefully, we can use what we want on the Z.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
This is fine observations. If weight and form factor aren’t a problem, one can mount any F mount lens via the FTZ adapter. Sigma lenses are very very huge and won’t focus as good as native Nikon lenses (S or G).
In the G line, as you can see above, the 58 is my personnal limit. The 105 or even the 85 G start to be too big. This is where the S Line kick in.

All the actual S lens spoil and will spoil photographers. They are extrem performers, easy to tame and very rewarding. All S lenses sports N nano coating. At many levels they are just as good as we can expect. For some, they might lack soul, might be just perfect... spoiling.

Hopefully, we can use what we want on the Z.
Looking forward to seeing your article and some samples. I just picked up a Z6 and the 24-70 2.8S. Will want to get a 50mm and an 85mm at some point, and I'm torn between the current 50/85 1.8S versions or the 58 1.4, or wait for the 50 1.2S and rumored 85 1.2S.
 

robdeszan

Member
Thanks for the input.

Early days with the 58mm but I totally get why it polarizes people. I really like it, personally.

On a related note,

Sold the 35mm 50mm 85mm 1.4 art lenses and replaced them with 35mm 58mm and 85mm G series primes, despite Sigmas being uber sharp and technically superior also faster to focus, and I do feel the Z camera finally allows the G lenses to shine at wider apertures. Much happier with the subtleness of their rendering. The Z lenses are much too sharp for the work I do - people photography - and lack character for me.
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Looking forward to seeing your article and some samples. I just picked up a Z6 and the 24-70 2.8S. Will want to get a 50mm and an 85mm at some point, and I'm torn between the current 50/85 1.8S versions or the 58 1.4, or wait for the 50 1.2S and rumored 85 1.2S.
You'll not regret the combo you have right now. I was on the verge to wait for the 50 f1.2 but it is a 50, not a 58, and I doubt they will emphasize on magic engineering like they did with the 58... but I might be wrong.

Tried hard to have the flare by screwing an old filter on it.

 

robdeszan

Member
That's my concern as well, personally. The current trend in designing mainstream photographic lenses seems to favour complex, highly corrected designs which a landscape or architecture shooter might welcome with open arms but I find that the bokeh suffers because of that, especially in how contrasty it becomes which I find distracting.

This is especially visible when shooting video with modern still lenses, the way the footage is rendered is more and more reminiscent of zooms. None of that is visible with high end cinematic lenses, for instance, where seasoned cinematographers perhaps realize ultimate sharpness and contrast is not actually an asset.

Sharpness is an easy aspect to measure for the average internet pixel-peeper and manufacturers have to give in to that unfortunate expectation to boost their sales and push the next "new and improved" model.

Another aspect that sucks the soul out of a lens for me is when geometrical distortion is corrected flat out. No, I am not looking for a novelty lens, but images lose 3d character if it is overdone by default (optical or baked in software corrections). Again, it is subtle but it has a detrimental effect.

A good analogy here is how most modern music recordings have been produced past the last 20 years or so, equalised to death in vocals (more recent I guess) but especially beat-wise. It deprives the music of grove and dynamics that come from slight rythm fluctuations, where a drummer might choose to drag a beat slightly, or slow down a few bars, for instance. These are often completely lost in post production when shifted digitally to allign them to the "correct" rythm markers or clicks for the whole song. It is often inaudible to the naked ear unless measured and quantified (we're talking fractions of seconds) but yet perceived by the brain; your foot just starts tapping or you're left completely indifferent to the ever-so-perfectly-recorded yet sterile piece of music.
 
Last edited:

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
On a technical point of view, I have seen some photographers saying that aspherical lenses aren’t optimised / prized for the bokeh. This lens is optimised for it ... she have two aspherical elements, one pure glass and one composite (glass+plastic).

Her prime field of action is night / sky wide open at infinity, something she does better than the previous 58f1.2.

I observed this sharpness and this is the hot subject of discord among many owners who used it like a normal 50. It is not.

On my lense (might have variations with yours) sharpness without halo start at roughly 6,5 / 6,9 feet to infinity. Between 1.5 to 6,5 I might experience some halo. Also, this is not a focus/recompose lens at all. At least not at f1.4.

Summary : this lense is not a closeup lense and never intended to be ( if you want Max perfs wide open).

Just my two cents.

The exemple photo above was shot below 5 feet and show some very moderate halo (+ the crap filter on top of it). I’ll post a photo tonight shot in hard daylight on a contrasty subject at infinity wide open, you’ll see what I mean.
 
Top