Looking through his replies in the comment sections, he said he currently does not have a bench mount for Z lenses
so look like we won't be seeing test on Z lenses from him anytime soon
At least Nasim is working on a review of 50/1.2s.
Unfortunately I did not find any comment of his specific to 50/1.2s but going through comment section there is
definitely not one of my favourite things to do
akul wrote:
I wondered about that. So ok to take from afar.
Luka
Over here, some temples don't allow taking photos inside the building as many older temples tend to be quite small and
photographers are getting in the way of worshippers but most temples will allow taking photo from outside.
In larger temples, most of them allow photographs from inside as well
Hi everyone,
So end of the story for the Nikon 50 1.2s vs Canon 50 1.2. My friend sent his copy to the Nikon service, and after investigations, this copy has no flaws. They suggested him to use the standard profile from ligthroom instead of the flat profile to gain a bit more sharpness,this flat profile is apparently made for video more than stills.
Honestly, there is no real difference in sharpness between those profiles for stills in lightroom, much more contrast and colors. So from my standpoint, and after some tests at least, my copy of the Canon RF 50 1.2 is far sharper than his copy of the Nikon 50 1.2S, and they are both in the tolerance zone when it comes to quality control.
At the end of the day both lenses are exceptional lenses for such a wide aperture.
jefonyx wrote:
Hi everyone,
So end of the story for the Nikon 50 1.2s vs Canon 50 1.2. My friend sent his copy to the Nikon service, and after investigations, this copy has no flaws. They suggested him to use the standard profile from ligthroom instead of the flat profile to gain a bit more sharpness,this flat profile is apparently made for video more than stills.
Honestly, there is no real difference in sharpness between those profiles for stills in lightroom, much more contrast and colors. So from my standpoint, and after some tests at least, my copy of the Canon RF 50 1.2 is far sharper than his copy of the Nikon 50 1.2S, and they are both in the tolerance zone when it comes to quality control.
At the end of the day both lenses are exceptional lenses for such a wide aperture....Show more →
Sadly, there probably is an issue with the lens despite Nikon's response. Nikon's 'within tolerances' response is a common refrain when a badly calibrated lens gets set in for recalibration. It's clear that their service tolerances are wider than the tolerances of a discerning photographer (well that or Nikon Service really just doesn't like doing the tuning)
Do remember that you can Fine Tune on Nikon, that may resolve some of the issues.
mawz wrote:
Sadly, there probably is an issue with the lens despite Nikon's response. Nikon's 'within tolerances' response is a common refrain when a badly calibrated lens gets set in for recalibration. It's clear that their service tolerances are wider than the tolerances of a discerning photographer (well that or Nikon Service really just doesn't like doing the tuning)
Do remember that you can Fine Tune on Nikon, that may resolve some of the issues.
Well, I'm not quite sure seeing these comparisons...the Nikon is way below the Sony (probably Canon too) in terms of pure resolution
The main explanation for this is probably that Nikon targeted (and achieved) minimal focus breathing. It is an additional optimization aspect, so something had to give. The difference between 60lp and 80lp of resolution is not important for most photographers, but the (lack of) focus breathing may well be important for anyone who occasionally uses the lens for video.
