So as I told, level of sharpness would be absolutely fine for my needs. It's juste my copy of the Canon is way sharper than the Nikon 50 1.2 presented here.
So as I told, level of sharpness would be absolutely fine for my needs. It's juste my copy of the Canon is way sharper than the Nikon 50 1.2 presented here.
Personally think its a bad copy. I have a "bad" copy of the Sigma 135, it is still sharper than most of the F mount lenses and I didn't question it until it was compared to a good copy a friend owns, it was a significant difference. Wish I hadn't done that, but I can live with it. That's the key, being okay with it. I bought the sigma used, had I dropped 2100 on a brand new lens I might have been a little more moved.
In this the canon copy seems to perform worse (probably not the best canon copy):
Buckeye2604 wrote:
Personally think its a bad copy. I have a "bad" copy of the Sigma 135, it is still sharper than most of the F mount lenses and I didn't question it until it was compared to a good copy a friend owns, it was a significant difference. Wish I hadn't done that, but I can live with it. That's the key, being okay with it. I bought the sigma used, had I dropped 2100 on a brand new lens I might have been a little more moved.
In this the canon copy seems to perform worse (probably not the best canon copy):
I have not seen this video before but usually I don't really watch youtube review channel much but just in case if anybody is interested, since it is all in Thai. At around :
2.00 Nikon has slightly bigger bokeh ball. Canon bokeh ball has sharper, more defined edge, Nikon is softer.
2.30, it is a comparison of center of the frame. Nikon is sharper (?)
2.50 Canon is sharper around the edge of the frame ---> a big surprise. Could be field curvature issue but I thought with the bigger lens, Nikon should do better ?
4.00 compare color tone, claimed Nikon is more contrasty, Not sure about this but I don't see a huge difference and definitely easily adjusted in post, I would think. Canon has more pleasing tone for portrait. Again easily corrected as you like, I think.
The clip is made as a review by Fotofile which is a small camera chain (by number of stores) but concentrate more on highend camera gears and probably the biggest share of sales, at least in Bangkok area.
suteetat wrote:
2.50 Canon is sharper around the edge of the frame ---> a big surprise. Could be field curvature issue.
Thanks for the summary.
Odd results for sure, the exact opposite of what MTF charts from both manufactures suggest. A 3D setup doesn’t seem like the best test subject for a 1.2 sharpness test. The figures and objects would need to be perfectly aligned otherwise you don’t know what should be in focus. The nikons plane of focus was clearly behind canon’s on the edge.
suteetat wrote:
I have not seen this video before but usually I don't really watch youtube review channel much but just in case if anybody is interested, since it is all in Thai. At around :
2.00 Nikon has slightly bigger bokeh ball. Canon bokeh ball has sharper, more defined edge, Nikon is softer.
2.30, it is a comparison of center of the frame. Nikon is sharper (?)
2.50 Canon is sharper around the edge of the frame ---> a big surprise. Could be field curvature issue but I thought with the bigger lens, Nikon should do better ?
4.00 compare color tone, claimed Nikon is more contrasty, Not sure about this but I don't see a huge difference and definitely easily adjusted in post, I would think. Canon has more pleasing tone for portrait. Again easily corrected as you like, I think.
The clip is made as a review by Fotofile which is a small camera chain (by number of stores) but concentrate more on highend camera gears and probably the biggest share of sales, at least in Bangkok area. ...Show more →
Near the end, there is a comparision table? Is this showing the advantages of each against the other? If so, what are they saying about each? Thanks for your translation.
Lance B wrote:
Near the end, there is a comparision table? Is this showing the advantages of each against the other? If so, what are they saying about each? Thanks for your translation.
The table pretty much summed up what I transplated before plus, Nikon is cheaper by about $US 300-400, Canon is lighter,
Nikon MTF looks better, they like Canon skintone better so Canon is better for portrait. They think Nikon is more contrasty and is better for landscape. For some reason, over here, it seems to be a mantra repeated over and over again by local camera/photography web/community that Canon is for portrait, Nikon is for landscape like people can't post process whatever camera brand to their liking.
suteetat wrote:
The table pretty much summed up what I transplated before plus, Nikon is cheaper by about $US 300-400, Canon is lighter,
Nikon MTF looks better, they like Canon skintone better so Canon is better for portrait. They think Nikon is more contrasty and is better for landscape. For some reason, over here, it seems to be a mantra repeated over and over again by local camera/photography web/community that Canon is for portrait, Nikon is for landscape like people can't post process whatever camera brand to their liking.
Thanks for the info.
One would think that post processing would alleviate any skin tone "issues", or even in camera profiling for jpeg output.
Anyone ditching their 58/1.4 after getting this? When the Z-system launched the prospect of this lens is what made me most excited and I assumed it would be an insta-pre-order (an AF 50/1.2 Nikkor!!!). I'm struggling to get excited about a lens that is so large and I'm not convinced it is delivering on the classic Nikkor aesthetic (likely a plus for many). I expected it to be large, of course, but still at least offer some size/weight advantage over a 24-70/2.8. The 58 seems to crush it aesthetically, but maybe I need to try one out to see how my results compare to my 58/1.4 results after PP.
The FTZ adapter is so damn ugly and I have a 20G/28E/58G/105E kit that is dependent on it!!
Just picked up the 70-200 as my son is getting faster and it is gorgeous. Not in a classic Nikkor way, per se, but still really nice and feels so good as a native lens. It is no 105E, but it could allow me to let the 105E go if the price isn't rock-bottom. The 20G could easily be replaced by the S and I think the 28E could be let go between my Leica Q and the upcoming 28 or maybe a future 28/1.8.
The 58 is really going to be hard to replace with a native Z and maybe it never should be replaced.
EDIT: Looking back through this thread again, I see some shots to my liking from twistacatz & suteetat, so I think I'm going to have to try one of these myself. This thread needs more people shooting with this lens!
50/1.2s is not going to replace 58/1.4G for sure. They are different enough aesthetically. I regretted selling my 58/1.4G awhile ago and have been thinking about buying it again one of these days. On the other hand, I am not sure how often I would pick 58/1.4G instead of 50/1.2S.
For now, if weight is not an issue and the situation is suitable, I would take out 58/.95 for sure but any other time, 50/1.2s has been glued to my camera a lot lately. I am just not sure I have room for 58/1.4G as well (consider that I also have Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 sitting in my cabinet)
20s will easily replaced 20G for sure. 28mm on the roadmap is most likely 28/2 pancake lens. It is a non S line so it will be nice and small but I doubt that it will surpass 28E. But I suppose if you have Leica Q, 28E is a bit redundant.
Does the lens have hard stop areas on the focus ring or does it just keep spinning? Thinking about using it for videos too.
aut0maticdan wrote:
Just picked up the 70-200 as my son is getting faster and it is gorgeous. Not in a classic Nikkor way, per se, but still really nice and feels so good as a native lens. It is no 105E, but it could allow me to let the 105E go if the price isn't rock-bottom. The 20G could easily be replaced by the S and I think the 28E could be let go between my Leica Q and the upcoming 28 or maybe a future 28/1.8.
This is my most noticeable area after moving from the D700 to a Z7ii. So far I just don’t get a feeling from the images but I have only natively used the 24-70 f/4.
Nope.....never giving up the 58mm f1.4G! I'm going to say forever I have the same prime kit as what you've mentioned below. I'm choosing to ignore the inconvenience of the FTZ adapter because these lenses are so good and I keep asking myself what more do I really want? I think one day I'll update the 20mm f1.8g to the S, but the 1.8G really is a great lens anyway. I don't shoot with it enough but it's a lens that's given me some of my best images. Tough to part with that.
I keep looking at images from the 50mm f1.2S and (sorry to say to those who own it), I think it would be a waste of money for me as it's a bit too perfect and boring (yikes, can I say that?!!). If I shot boudoir and didn't use other focal lengths for portraits, I could see this lens being useful though. But the images from the 58mm f1.4G are pretty special (and unique) and I think that will become more valuable as time goes on since all new lenses these days are narrowing down to a perfect, predictable image.
Perhaps this is a Friday night with a rum comment, but I'd be curious what others think......is it me or are these newer lenses (from a variety of manufacturers) all working towards the same type of image that the iPhones and AI are trying to create? I'm not suggesting that they're the same, but I'm suggesting that the target seems to be similar. Sharp subject, creamy bokeh, but lacking in the artistic flare. This is where I think the older lenses are great.....they have some character which may be more interesting to me as time goes on. And who am I kidding....I've had more than one rum
Back on topic - my suggestion is what I'm planning on doing.....keeping the primes with the adapter for the long haul and adding a few S lenses to fill in some gaps (lighter 1.8S primes and the zooms). The 28, 58 and 105mm primes are not replaceable now and possibly in the future.
aut0maticdan wrote:
Anyone ditching their 58/1.4 after getting this? When the Z-system launched the prospect of this lens is what made me most excited and I assumed it would be an insta-pre-order (an AF 50/1.2 Nikkor!!!). I'm struggling to get excited about a lens that is so large and I'm not convinced it is delivering on the classic Nikkor aesthetic (likely a plus for many). I expected it to be large, of course, but still at least offer some size/weight advantage over a 24-70/2.8. The 58 seems to crush it aesthetically, but maybe I need to try one out to see how my results compare to my 58/1.4 results after PP.
The FTZ adapter is so damn ugly and I have a 20G/28E/58G/105E kit that is dependent on it!!
Just picked up the 70-200 as my son is getting faster and it is gorgeous. Not in a classic Nikkor way, per se, but still really nice and feels so good as a native lens. It is no 105E, but it could allow me to let the 105E go if the price isn't rock-bottom. The 20G could easily be replaced by the S and I think the 28E could be let go between my Leica Q and the upcoming 28 or maybe a future 28/1.8.
The 58 is really going to be hard to replace with a native Z and maybe it never should be replaced.
EDIT: Looking back through this thread again, I see some shots to my liking from twistacatz & suteetat, so I think I'm going to have to try one of these myself. This thread needs more people shooting with this lens!...Show more →
aut0maticdan wrote:
Anyone ditching their 58/1.4 after getting this? When the Z-system launched the prospect of this lens is what made me most excited and I assumed it would be an insta-pre-order (an AF 50/1.2 Nikkor!!!). I'm struggling to get excited about a lens that is so large and I'm not convinced it is delivering on the classic Nikkor aesthetic (likely a plus for many). I expected it to be large, of course, but still at least offer some size/weight advantage over a 24-70/2.8. The 58 seems to crush it aesthetically, but maybe I need to try one out to see how my results compare to my 58/1.4 results after PP....Show more →
One of my favorite lenses is the Nikon 58mm 1.4G, an extremely finicky lens that would consistently miss focus on my D750, despite the energy spent fine-tuning. I rented the Z6 to see if it offered an improvement and was blown away with the accuracy.
After Nikon's last price drop, the Z6 became too good to pass up and I purchased it specifically to use with my 58.
The 58mm kinda messed up lenses for me...my 28mm 1.4E looks too 'flat'. Maybe most of that is due to focal length, but some of it can definitely be attributed to the lens design. I can see myself complimenting the 58mm with a 35mm 1.4G or 24mm 1.4G in the future.
Looking at the 50mm 1.2S shots...I really like what I am seeing and glad that Nikon didn't dial out too much character in a pursuit for perfection.
That's the key, being okay with it. I bought the sigma used, had I dropped 2100 on a brand new lens I might have been a little more moved. 
I have the same prime kit as what you've mentioned below. I'm choosing to ignore the inconvenience of the FTZ adapter because these lenses are so good and I keep asking myself what more do I really want? I think one day I'll update the 20mm f1.8g to the S, but the 1.8G really is a great lens anyway. I don't shoot with it enough but it's a lens that's given me some of my best images. Tough to part with that.