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.
Random thought: why are reviewers so focused on sharpness? All of these lenses are plenty sharp enough. It’s odd this site doesn’t even mention bokeh quality when comparing a set of 1.2 lenses.
Nikon's MTF charts also suggest that the f1.2S should be about as sharp as the f1.8S, both wide open, but MTF is done at infinity - maybe the f1.2S becomes significantly less sharp as it focuses closer?
Would be interesting to see if anyone has both the f1.2S and the f1.8S and could compare both at standard portrait distances to see if the f1.2S really does deteriorate up close or if Lenstip just had a poor copy or made an error.
Nope definitely not below the Canon in my short time with the two. There seems to be some wonky copies out in the wild. Also I’m guessing there are some testers using the lenses at or near minimum focus distances during their resolution tests.
