atnpro wrote:
What is your purpose of using this lens?
For low light?
For shallower depth of field?
For sharpness at smaller aperture?
For the weight of the lens?
Or something else?
Overall IQ is outstanding. The bokeh, the shallow DOF, the sharpness wide open and stopped down are all the attributes I love about it. However, like any lens, you need the right tool for the job at hand.
atnpro wrote:
What is your purpose of using this lens?
For low light?
In my case, not really. Low light would be only one of the many purposes.
For shallower depth of field?
That is probably one of the factor.
For sharpness at smaller aperture?
For that only, many other lens does very well too. ( I interpret 'small aperture' mean, f5.6, or smaller ) If, you meant, sharpness at wide open, then that should be another major factor. Lack of traditional 50mm's haze gives 1.2S a very unique look.
For the weight of the lens?
Right. I need some workout.
Or something else?
For the special look that this lens gives is definitely an attraction. I keep feeling as if depth of field is deeper for 1.2 at 1.2. That may not be actually true. What may be happening is the oof transition is quite smooth and gradual, so it feels quite real or surreal at times. Anyway, I also like 50mm focal length, and it was one lens that I was going to get. Price was a deterrent, but could not resist the curiosity. I am still glad I bought this lens.
I’m not sure if this is what you were saying or not (typo above?), but the bokeh of the 1.2S seems smoother at 1.8 than the 1.8S.
akul wrote:
In my case, not really. Low light would be only one of the many purposes.
That is probably one of the factor.
For that only, many other lens does very wall too. ( I interpret 'small aperture' mean, f5.6, or smaller ) If, you meant, sharpness at wide open, then that should be another major factor. Lack of traditional 50mm's haze gives 1.2S a very unique look.
Right. I need some workout.
For the special look that this lens gives is definitely an attraction. I keep feeling as if depth of field is deeper for 1.2 at 1.2. That may not be actually true. What may be happening is the oof transition is quite smooth and gradual, so it feels quite real or surreal at times. Anyway, I also like 50mm focal length, and it was one lens that I was going to get. Price was a deterrent, but could not resist the curiosity. I am still glad I bought this lens.
urbanwild wrote:
I’m not sure if this is what you were saying or not (typo above?), but the bokeh of the 1.2S seems smoother at 1.8 than the 1.8S.
I forgot to mention that I really like the bokeh of 50/1.2S in general. I think the bokeh is 'amazing', hence the post
Yes, that particular shot was at f2 as it was from close distance. Background does not have any specular highlight so the rendering is smooth. I do not own 1.8S so I can not speak for that matter. May be one day, I will pick that one up too for light weight hiking setup.
Sauseschritt wrote:
I'd get a Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f1.2 VM and a Nikon F to Leica M Adapter:
According to Fred's tests, the E-mount version works better on Sony cameras than the VM.
I guess the same holds for Nikon Z cameras, considering the sensor stack thickness.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Disadvantages:
1. Fred Miranda reported problems because the lens is silvery on the front, so this can cause reflections onto the image.
2. Doesnt automatically stop down. (But frankly I would probably want to shoot this lens wide open all the time anyway)
3. No EXIF data.
Wow...so may candid pictures of people who likely have no idea that they have been plastered all over the internet just so the "photographer" can get praise on forums, lol!
