akul wrote:
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.
Luka
What a snall world
I lived in the USA in the seventies for many years worked in Mobil Chemical before the merger with EXxon.
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.
Both lenses are close to the resolution of the Z 7 sensor, so it's difficult to see any differences. At f/1.8, the 50mm f/1.2 S is noticeably better with high contrast edges (say, black letters on white, high gloss paper), specular highlights and reflections, especially towards the edges.
AcuteShadows wrote:
Both lenses are close to the resolution of the Z 7 sensor, so it's difficult to see any differences. At f/1.8, the 50mm f/1.2 S is noticeably better with high contrast edges (say, black letters on white, high gloss paper), specular highlights and reflections, especially towards the edges.
It's the subtle differences that may go un-noticed in a well designed lens that make the difference in the end result. In other words, you may see that one lens has nicer rendering in certain situations that are not overly apparent but just go to make the image look better than a less well designed lens. This is why it can be difficult to put your finger on why a lens's results look better but can't easily explain why.
AcuteShadows wrote:
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....Show more →
No it doesn't make use of 45 megapixels. The other four Nikon lenses I shoot with do. Even at f/1.4, the 50mm 1.2 S is far behind those other lenses.
The bokeh on the 50mm 1.2 is average.
I posted the curve between the Sony and the Nikon only to demonstrate the difference between the construction, and optical design. The Sony is quality at f/1.2, and the Nikon is not.
I sold my Z9/50mm 1.2 S because I wasn't impressed with either one. It's not a bad lens by any means, but it isn't worth $2,000.
If you think the 50mm 1.2S is sharp at f/1.2, or even f/1.4 then I suggest you use something like the 28mm 1.4E, Sigma 105mm 1.4, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 ... because you don't know what full resolution looks like at 1:1.
Ricky_K wrote:
No it doesn't make use of 45 megapixels. The other four Nikon lenses I shoot with do. Even at f/1.4, the 50mm 1.2 S is far behind those other lenses.
The bokeh on the 50mm 1.2 is average.
I posted the curve between the Sony and the Nikon only to demonstrate the difference between the construction, and optical design. The Sony is quality at f/1.2, and the Nikon is not.
I sold my Z9/50mm 1.2 S because I wasn't impressed with either one. It's not a bad lens by any means, but it isn't worth $2,000.
If you think the 50mm 1.2S is sharp at f/1.2, or even f/1.4 then I suggest you use something like the 28mm 1.4E, Sigma 105mm 1.4, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 ... because you don't know what full resolution looks like at 1:1....Show more →
. I had the 300 f2.8 and I own the 400 f2.8E FL VR which is possibly the sharpest lens out there, especially from Nikon. The 50 f1.2S is right up there and that is on 45Mp.
And you keep comparing lenses across platforms, which you cannot do.
I have 400/2.8S, 600/4e FL, Otus 85/1.4, Sigma Art 135/1.8, Zeiss 135/2 Apo-sonnar, Leica 50/2 Apo, Noct Nikkor 58/.95 and several other sharp lenses and I certainly feel that 50/1.2S wide open belong to this group. Rendering is not quite up to Noct Nikkor standard but very close.
Ricky_K wrote:
No it doesn't make use of 45 megapixels. The other four Nikon lenses I shoot with do. Even at f/1.4, the 50mm 1.2 S is far behind those other lenses.
The bokeh on the 50mm 1.2 is average.
I posted the curve between the Sony and the Nikon only to demonstrate the difference between the construction, and optical design. The Sony is quality at f/1.2, and the Nikon is not.
I sold my Z9/50mm 1.2 S because I wasn't impressed with either one. It's not a bad lens by any means, but it isn't worth $2,000.
If you think the 50mm 1.2S is sharp at f/1.2, or even f/1.4 then I suggest you use something like the 28mm 1.4E, Sigma 105mm 1.4, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 ... because you don't know what full resolution looks like at 1:1....Show more →
Thank you! I have a set of Zeiss Milvus lenses. I know when a lens is sharp, or when it is showing moiré around the trusses of a distant scaffolding in a cityscape image. Same with the Leica 28mm Summicron.
The Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 is less sharp than the Milvus 25mm f/1.4, but that is mostly beneficial because it is less likely to show moiré patterns. It will make full use of the sensor resolution of the Nikon Z7.
I have taken photographs with the Nikon 50mm f/1.2. It shows contrast edges from almost black to almost white over a distance of 2 pixels. Anything that is sharper will introduce stepping artefacts or "moiré edges", which would be unhelpful. Thus, I consider the resolution of the Nikon f/1.2 at f/1.2 in the center area ideal for the Nikon Z7 sensor. Maybe it is a tiny bit behind of what the sensor can deliver at f/1.2 at the edges. I haven't tested that.
I posted the curve between the Sony and the Nikon only to demonstrate the difference between the construction, and optical design. The Sony is quality at f/1.2, and the Nikon is not.
I sold my Z9/50mm 1.2 S because I wasn't impressed with either one. It's not a bad lens by any means, but it isn't worth $2,000.
If you think the 50mm 1.2S is sharp at f/1.2, or even f/1.4 then I suggest you use something like the 28mm 1.4E, Sigma 105mm 1.4, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 ... because you don't know what full resolution looks like at 1:1....Show more →
Same here, that's why I really like using it for street photography. If they can do this with a 35 1.2 Nikon will have some really good, but fat street lenses. Same could be said with an 85 1.2. CATProductions wrote:
Well-done. I love the way this lens renders street settings.
Ricky_K wrote:
No it doesn't make use of 45 megapixels. The other four Nikon lenses I shoot with do. Even at f/1.4, the 50mm 1.2 S is far behind those other lenses.
The bokeh on the 50mm 1.2 is average.
I posted the curve between the Sony and the Nikon only to demonstrate the difference between the construction, and optical design. The Sony is quality at f/1.2, and the Nikon is not.
I sold my Z9/50mm 1.2 S because I wasn't impressed with either one. It's not a bad lens by any means, but it isn't worth $2,000.
If you think the 50mm 1.2S is sharp at f/1.2, or even f/1.4 then I suggest you use something like the 28mm 1.4E, Sigma 105mm 1.4, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 ... because you don't know what full resolution looks like at 1:1....Show more →
. I had the 300 f2.8 and I own the 400 f2.8E FL VR which is possibly the sharpest lens out there, especially from Nikon. The 50 f1.2S is right up there and that is on 45Mp.
