NissanPatrol wrote:
I always seek the sharpest image. Other image quality elements such corner lighting come as last priority.
So from this video it appears that the best sharpness is around F/2
Also I have to be carful with the focusing ring location. I disabled the first ring I wish I could disable the focusing ring as well.
Philip
The 50mm 1.2 is actually soft compared to the Sony or Canon. The sharpness level isn't on par or even respectable until f/2.8, reaching maximum resolution at f/4.0.
The curve is similar to the older 35mm f/1.4G AF-S, 24mm f/1.4G AF-S, 85mm f/1.4G AF-S and the hideously soft 58mm f1.4G AF-S.
You're paying $2,100 USD to shoot this lens at f/1.2, not f/2.8.
Ricky_K wrote:
The 50mm 1.2 is actually soft compared to the Sony or Canon. The sharpness level isn't on par or even respectable until f/2.8, reaching maximum resolution at f/4.0.
The curve is similar to the older 35mm f/1.4G AF-S, 24mm f/1.4G AF-S, 85mm f/1.4G AF-S and the hideously soft 58mm f1.4G AF-S.
You're paying $2,100 USD to shoot this lens at f/1.2, not f/2.8.
Thanks for the enlightment
So what is the sharpest Z mount lens for landscape? Or maybe in your opinion nothing like that exist.
Ricky_K wrote:
The 50mm 1.2 is actually soft compared to the Sony or Canon. The sharpness level isn't on par or even respectable until f/2.8, reaching maximum resolution at f/4.0.
The curve is similar to the older 35mm f/1.4G AF-S, 24mm f/1.4G AF-S, 85mm f/1.4G AF-S and the hideously soft 58mm f1.4G AF-S.
You're paying $2,100 USD to shoot this lens at f/1.2, not f/2.8.
I'm shooting the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S on a Z7, and it is not soft. As far as I remember there was one video that said so, but it may have been an issue with the respective copy or some other reason.
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm shooting the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S on a Z7, and it is not soft. As far as I remember there was one video that said so, but it may have been an issue with the respective copy or some other reason.
Red dot is resolution in the center. 70-80 is appropriate for 36-45mp.
The curve on the Nikon is wrong, and as a result you're not getting what you should out of a $2,100 lens. Better off with the 50mm f/1.8 S to be honest and that lens is flat and dull.
Red dot is resolution in the center. 70-80 is appropriate for 36-45mp.
The curve on the Nikon is wrong, and as a result you're not getting what you should out of a $2,100 lens. Better off with the 50mm f/1.8 S to be honest and that lens is flat and dull.
This is not what I'm seeing with my copy of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S.
Actually, there is no fixed value that can be associated with a certain sensor size. In a wide interval, increasing lens sharpness still improves the image, although the gain is diminishing as the lens resolution approaches the sensor resolution. Also, keep in mind that the pixels of the sensor are discontinuous, while the contrast of a lens is decreasing continuosly with high spatial frequencies. In addition, a lens that is "sharper than the sensor" may elicit unwanted moiré effects.
In the center, my copy the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S makes full use of the sensor resolution. I don't know if that is case with the copy that Lenstip has used.
I also have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 S. The bokeh is very neutral, it certainly does not have the dreamy look that you get, for example, with a non-APO Voigtländer. It also does not have the glow of a Voigtländer, nor does it have the busy bokeh of the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G (which I also own). It is a rather compact lens, so there is a limit to the liveliness of the bokeh. The Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4, with a larger front element, certainly has a more lively bokeh. But with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 S, you have autofocus, and you are on the safe side with regard to chromatic aberrations, bokeh, etc.
With regard to firsthand experience, I can only talk about the lenses that I personally use. That is what I am communicating. I would add that I recommend against buying a lens at this price level without testing the particular copy at the shop.
So what is the sharpest Z mount lens for landscape? Or maybe in your opinion nothing like that exist.
Philip
With regard to image perfection at smaller apertures - i.e. critical landscape work -, there is indeed currently no perfect native lens below 50mm for Z mount.
I am using the Zeiss Milvus 25mm f/1.4 ZF.2 with FTZ adapter for landscape work. In particular, the Milvus lenses have no color shift towards the periphery, unlike every other lens that I'm using (yes, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S has a very small color shift, if you are doing photographs under controlled conditions and you are looking for it). Use it at f/5.6 or smaller, if necessary. The Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 probably has the same characteristics.
However, the differences are quite small, and the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is also a very fine lens for landscape work.
AcuteShadows wrote:
With regard to image perfection at smaller apertures - i.e. critical landscape work -, there is indeed currently no perfect native lens below 50mm for Z mount.
I only have the 24mm f/1.8 S. I have used it for city (travel) photography, when I needed a lightweight set. I have heard the 20mm is very good for astrophotography due to very limited coma. I'm not sure if I would have bought the Milvus lens set after the Nikon S series lenses became available. The Milvus is a little bit better, however.
Red dot is resolution in the center. 70-80 is appropriate for 36-45mp.
The curve on the Nikon is wrong, and as a result you're not getting what you should out of a $2,100 lens. Better off with the 50mm f/1.8 S to be honest and that lens is flat and dull.
Firstly, you cannot compare lenses across different systems.
Secondly, I always find Lenstips results a little suspect. They never seem to marry up with other well respected reviewers or my own observations.
Thirdly, I own the both the 50 f1.8S and the 50 f1.2S and it is stunningly sharp wide open and at least as sharp as the 50 f1.8S. I mean, do you even have the lens or going off charts to support your agenda?
Sixthly, you've registered on the 1st of April 2022 and have four posts all criticising a number of Nikon lenses.
And with no photos to support his point, and no newer post. May be somebody had a bad day and wanted to blow things up.
May be we need not to waste energy.
Regarding your third point Lance, I wonder if there actually is some sample variation? Full transparency, I would love to have the 50 mm 1.2 S. I think it’s an amazing lens but I struggle with the idea of having three lenses that are similar. However I did try two different copies of the 1.2 and I would say both copies were not as sharp as the 1.8 S when both lenses were wide open. When both were shot at 1.8, they were equally as sharp but the bokeh was still nicer than the 1.2S.
I’m certainly not wanting to continue the conversation from someone who just joined the board. However, I did find this one point of your’s interesting and I don’t know if people have discussed it yet.
Thanks!
Lance B wrote:
Firstly, you cannot compare lenses across different systems.
Secondly, I always find Lenstips results a little suspect. They never seem to marry up with other well respected reviewers.
Thirdly, I own the both the 50 f1.8S and the 50 f1.2S and it is stunningly sharp wide open and at least as sharp as the 50 f1.8S. I mean, do you even have the lens or going off charts to support your agenda?
urbanwild wrote:
Regarding your third point Lance, I wonder if there actually is some sample variation? Full transparency, I would love to have the 50 mm 1.2 S. I think it’s an amazing lens but I struggle with the idea of having three lenses that are similar. However I did try two different copies of the 1.2 and I would say both copies were not as sharp as the 1.8 S when both lenses were wide open. When both were shot at 1.8, they were equally as sharp but the bokeh was still nicer than the 1.2S.
I’m certainly not wanting to continue the conversation from someone who just joined the board. However, I did find this one point of your’s interesting and I don’t know if people have discussed it yet.
There may be sample variation, but I cannot comment on that as I do not know. If there is a difference of sharpness it is un-noticeable and I certainly don't see it or for that matter, care. But then, is it even relevant? As I say, I have both but I have not used the 50 f1.8S since getting the 50 f1.2 S and the 50 f1.2 is almost always in my bag.
Yeah true. There’s way too much focus on the little differences but at the end of the day they’re so minor vs what is otherwise available. A life of luxuries with the latest gear! Cheers
Lance B wrote:
There may be sample variation, but I cannot comment on that as I do not know. If there is a difference of sharpness it is un-noticeable and I certainly don't see it or for that matter, care. But then, is it even relevant? As I say, I have both but I have not used the 50 f1.8S since getting the 50 f1.2 S and the 50 f1.2 is almost always in my bag.
urbanwild wrote:
Yeah true. There’s way too much focus on the little differences but at the end of the day they’re so minor vs what is otherwise available. A life of luxuries with the latest gear! Cheers
I love the hilly country. Every corner has identity.
where I live is flat.
I visited Red Sea long ago to Sharm el-Shiekh, for diving. It was an amazing place, but did not have time to do anything else. The dry hot weather is something we don't have. Where I live is indeed hilly and have multiple valleys with each having slightly different character.
