# Comparison between the Nikon 50mm f1.4G, 58mm f1.4G, and the 85mm f1.4G



## Vtec44 (Sep 22, 2021)

They were shot using the same camera, same settings, from the same spot, under the same lighting, and just seconds apart.  They're not in any particular order.  can you guess which one is which?


----------



## Strodav (Sep 22, 2021)

85, 58, 50


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 23, 2021)

58, 85, 50


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

-

85, 58, 50 is the order I see!


----------



## cgw (Sep 23, 2021)

Not that bored--yet.


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

cgw said:


> Not that bored--yet.



It is quite interesting to be able to predict the end result
of the lenses available, I think.


----------



## Rickbb (Sep 23, 2021)

The 50 is on the right, it's much sharper than the others, which is 85 in the middle and the least sharp is the 58 on the left.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 23, 2021)

cgw said:


> Not that bored--yet.


But bored enough to reply to tell people that you're not that  bored?


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 23, 2021)

It's 58, 50, and 85m.  This was before I do any AF fine tune.  It's a bit of a surprise to see the result.  I need to find a better model for a more thorough test.


----------



## Space Face (Sep 23, 2021)

Hmmmm, that's interesting.  No-one got it right and two got all three wrong.  Yeah, very interesting little test and a surprising result I have to say.


----------



## cgw (Sep 23, 2021)

Vtec44 said:


> But bored enough to reply to tell people that you're not that  bored?


But then how bored were you when you cooked this?


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 23, 2021)

Space Face said:


> Hmmmm, that's interesting.  No-one got it right and two got all three wrong.  Yeah, very interesting little test and a surprising result I have to say.


Yeah I want to test it against the Nikon 50 1.2L and the 85 1.2L next.


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Vtec44 said:


> They were shot using the same camera, same settings, *from the same spot,* under the same lighting, and just seconds apart.





Vtec44 said:


> It's 58, 50, and 85m.


My question, James, is: "how can the 58 and 50
show a longer focal length than the 85?"


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 23, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> My question, James, is: "how can the 58 and 50
> show a longer focal length than the 85?"



Through the magic of cropping in Photoshop.


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Sep 23, 2021)

Vtec44 said:


> Through the magic of cropping in Photoshop.



Then, that comparison is not valid since all parameters were not
preserved and constant throughout the test.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 23, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> Then, that comparison is not valid since all parameters were not
> preserved and constant throughout the test.


Yeah compression isn't what I was looking for since it's more predictable.  I knew people would use compression to guess the lens.  I wanted the framing to be as close as possible so people can guess w/o bias.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 24, 2021)

Like @NS: Nikon Shooter I question the validity of a test, where the parameters were changed. You inferred everything was equal in the shots, _"They were shot using the same camera, same settings, from the same spot, under the same lighting, and just seconds apart"_ cropping the frames differently is not in keeping a constant parameter. I'm confused as to what exactly you where hoping to compare in this test.


----------



## Rickbb (Sep 24, 2021)

Agreed, invalid. A comparison test eliminates all variables other than the things being compared.


----------



## Strodav (Sep 24, 2021)

Vtec44 said:


> It's 58, 50, and 85m.  This was before I do any AF fine tune.  It's a bit of a surprise to see the result.  I need to find a better model for a more thorough test.


I call foul!  Given they were taken from the same spot, how is the magnification of the 50mm lens greater than the 85mm lens?  Answer, cropped in PS, which was not stated in the original post.


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Sep 24, 2021)

Space Face said:


> Hmmmm, that's interesting.  No-one got it right and two got all three wrong.  Yeah, very interesting little test and a surprising result I have to say.



Still interesting and surprising?


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 24, 2021)

LOL The purpose for me was to test the back ground rendering under the same lighting, camera settings, and distance.  Cropping in PS doesn’t change how a lens renders the background, the transition from light to dark in the out of focus area, or the onion ring effect.  Most people can differentiate between 50 vs 58/85 based on the bokeh quality but it’s hard to do so between 58 and 85.  If magnification is left in there then it’s pretty obvious which lens is which.

Did you guys also see that  the 58mm appears to have less contrast compare to both the 50 and 85mm? It’s noticeable in the out of focus area.


----------



## Space Face (Sep 24, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> Still interesting and surprising?


Yes. Still.🙄


----------



## Meehow (Sep 28, 2021)

85, 58, 50?


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 28, 2021)

Vtec44 said:


> Cropping in PS doesn’t change how a lens renders the background, the transition from light to dark in the out of focus area, or the onion ring effect.


I can't seem to pull it from the dark corners of my senior brain, but something about this doesn't seem totally correct. I would agree that the background rendering is locked, and wouldn't change, but how you view it would change if you crop because you're magnifying a specific part of the rendering. This might not be the best example to use, but I found this site very interesting because it allows you to rapidly compare the bokeh. DOF simulator - Camera depth of field calculator with visual background blur and bokeh simulation.


----------



## RAZKY (Sep 30, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> I can't seem to pull it from the dark corners of my senior brain, but something about this doesn't seem totally correct. I would agree that the background rendering is locked, and wouldn't change, but how you view it would change if you crop because you're magnifying a specific part of the rendering. This might not be the best example to use, but I found this site very interesting because it allows you to rapidly compare the bokeh. DOF simulator - Camera depth of field calculator with visual background blur and bokeh simulation.


If you subscribe to Wikipedia's definition of the word Bokeh - Wikipedia, that DOF calculator only shows the amount of blur - it says nothing about bokeh. I do agree with others who say the OP's "comparison" is meaningless.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 1, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> you subscribe to Wikipedia's definition of the word Bokeh - Wikipedia, that DOF calculator only shows the amount of blur - it says nothing about bokeh. I



The definition of the original Japanese word "boke" is haze or blur. The "h" was added for ease of english pronuciation. The resulting word "bokeh" is sometimes defined as the asthetic quality of the OOF blur or the way a lens renders the OOF points of light. It's an old argument as to which is correct that's better left to another thread, but using the same source that you quoted, the first line of the definition reads " bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the "blur"  produced in out-of-focus parts of an image".  If you'll Google it most sites define it in some way that refers to the aesthetics of the blur in OOF areas.


----------



## RAZKY (Oct 1, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> The definition of the original Japanese word "boke" is haze or blur. The "h" was added for ease of english pronuciation. The resulting word "bokeh" is sometimes defined as the asthetic quality of the OOF blur or the way a lens renders the OOF points of light. It's an old argument as to which is correct that's better left to another thread, but using the same source that you quoted, the first line of the definition reads " bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the "blur"  produced in out-of-focus parts of an image".  If you'll Google it most sites define it in some way that refers to the aesthetics of the blur in OOF areas.


Since the "quality" of out of focus blur is determined by lens design, I fail to understand how the calculator can show it.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 1, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> Since the "quality" of out of focus blur is determined by lens design, I fail to understand how the calculator can show



No, the lens may impart certain aesthetics in the OOF areas of the original digital raw file, but by no means does it prevent added enhancements post. Just about anything lens related, including "Bokeh balls" can be duplicated post, such that only the very experienced could catch the difference.


----------



## RAZKY (Oct 1, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> No, the lens may impart certain aesthetics in the OOF areas of the original digital raw file, but by no means does it prevent added enhancements post. Just about anything lens related, including "Bokeh balls" can be duplicated post, such that only the very experienced could catch the difference.


Thank you.


----------

