F786786 wrote:
After all going through all of these pages, Youtube videos from various photo gurus and the rest, it appears to me that the 50 1.8s provides the ideal lens.
Top notch build quality.
Top notch image.
Much lighter and manageable for prolonged/daily carry.
significantly less expensive.
For a tripod mounted or indoor portrait session, maybe the 1.2s may be slightly superior but for every day use and still a 9.9/10 image quality, the 1.8s is my choice.
This is the correct path forward. Repeat this to yourself as you acquire the 1.8, and enjoy it in peace. Never actually try the 1.2.
You will be forever happy if you follow this advice.
F786786 wrote:
After all going through all of these pages, Youtube videos from various photo gurus and the rest, it appears to me that the 50 1.8s provides the ideal lens.
Top notch build quality.
Top notch image.
Much lighter and manageable for prolonged/daily carry.
significantly less expensive.
For a tripod mounted or indoor portrait session, maybe the 1.2s may be slightly superior but for every day use and still a 9.9/10 image quality, the 1.8s is my choice.
I own the 50/1.8S, very good lens but as with Nikon 50mm trend since decades nothing to scream to miracle, price tag for a f1.8 is what it is, construction is ok and, again, for the price point it has to be good, optical quality is good, sharp corner to corner (but who knows how sharp is the lens and how smart is the camera software...), at the end of the day a lens which takes home the result but quite boring...
On the F I never found an AF 50 which had character and made up with the loved-hated 58G, on the Z I could not afford, to test the system, the 50/1.2S, and mind you, I love the 50 and 85mm focal lengths, but, hey, f1.8 and f1.2 are not even cousins and what I see off of my f1.8 is not even close to what I see from the f1.2, if you need a good casual 50 the f1.8 is your lens, if you want THE 50 the story changes...
Alexander Ross wrote:
I really enjoyed working with 58 /1.4G, but the lack of sharpness at /1.4 was sometimes infuriating. it's time to try a new tool, and I can always buy a 58 back in better condition than my copy was, if I want.
I always wonder people complaining about lack of sharpness of the 58G at f1.4, I must have either been very lucky with my copy or with my shooting if not both. I think the 58 is a lens which takes a long steep learning curve due to it's field curvature characteristics, the 50/1.2S is a corrected lens, amazing from what I can see and for sure on my dream wish list, I don't know how easy to use but for sure the 58 is not a forgiving one, distance, aperture, position of the subject... add to this the usual other variables and hitting the shutter is like betting the lottery but when you win, oh my...
Post more of those 50/1.2S portraits, love them!!!
GiovanniAprea wrote:
I always wonder people complaining about lack of sharpness of the 58G at f1.4, I must have either been very lucky with my copy or with my shooting if not both. I think the 58 is a lens which takes a long steep learning curve due to it's field curvature characteristics, the 50/1.2S is a corrected lens, amazing from what I can see and for sure on my dream wish list, I don't know how easy to use but for sure the 58 is not a forgiving one, distance, aperture, position of the subject... add to this the usual other variables and hitting the shutter is like betting the lottery but when you win, oh my...
Post more of those 50/1.2S portraits, love them!!! ...Show more →
Indeed, as long as the subject being shot at an open aperture on a Nikon 58/1.4 is located in the center of the frame, there is enough sharpness even for a 45 megapixel matrix. But once you start shooting objects according to the rules of the third composition, the sharpness begins to decrease and you have to cover the aperture to /2 --/2.5. Perhaps I had such a not very successful copy, but I consider the picture from it to be one of the best. When shooting at 35/1.4 from Tamron and Nikon 105/1.4, I wanted to get a comparable sharpness in the 50 mm range, so I decided to buy 50 f/1.2
Thanks for the feedback about the portraits! I upload all my work here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexparkhom/
I am a follower of your Flickr account, very nice work!!!
The 58G is not a lens to use kind of point and shoot, it's important to know the philosophy behind it and to learn how to use it, when focus and recompose is the habit it does no better and maybe worse than any other 50ish lens, the filed curvature WANTS the subject to be in the center for the magics to happen and, still, the right distance, aperture bla bla bla
This said the lens works even better adapted on a Z body provided all of the above, personally I have not even ever seen in person the 50/1.2S (better so...) but the samples are amazing, I guess the results are somehow different than the 58G, lenses with a different philosophy and whose project belongs to different persons and eras, one won't make the other redundant for sure, having the $$$ would get both, the 58G has the advantage of the F bayonet and as such suitable for the those who still enjoy using a D-SLR and let me tell you, used on my ancient Fuji S5Pro and it does magic, feels like a film camera; film camera wise I still can't tell how it works on an F100 but I won't tell anybody, with digital most of us, me included, believe being photographers, film doesn't lie...
I shot a few events with it. The first one I used it for was basically the nail in the coffin for it. I need consistency, not "steep learning curve." Did a few more things with it and people on here told me my copy was a lemon so I got rid of it. Work an event where your jobs equivalent to a CEO is there doing random things the last thing you want is "lottery." The 50 1.2 is "plug and play," it just works, day in day out, regardless of aperture and where the subject is. GiovanniAprea wrote:
I always wonder people complaining about lack of sharpness of the 58G at f1.4, I must have either been very lucky with my copy or with my shooting if not both. I think the 58 is a lens which takes a long steep learning curve due to it's field curvature characteristics, the 50/1.2S is a corrected lens, amazing from what I can see and for sure on my dream wish list, I don't know how easy to use but for sure the 58 is not a forgiving one, distance, aperture, position of the subject... add to this the usual other variables and hitting the shutter is like betting the lottery but when you win, oh my...
Post more of those 50/1.2S portraits, love them!!! ...Show more →
JadedWriter wrote:
I shot a few events with it. The first one I used it for was basically the nail in the coffin for it. I need consistency, not "steep learning curve." Did a few more things with it and people on here told me my copy was a lemon so I got rid of it. Work an event where your jobs equivalent to a CEO is there doing random things the last thing you want is "lottery." The 50 1.2 is "plug and play," it just works, day in day out, regardless of aperture and where the subject is.
In my opinion you bought the wrong lens for the scenario, the 58G is not, as you call it, plug and play, I had similar experience at the beginning, it was kind of meh, nothing memorable until you have it all set properly, which I didn't master yet, but for sure when the subject is in the center spot and the aperture vs distance matches it's pure poetry.
I am not saying the 50/1.2 isn't good, anzi, so good that I hope one day to get it but owning the 58G and not doing events I can live with it
As I said. Prefer things to just "work." You can miss me with that under certain circumstances nonsense. If I have to break out measuring tape to get a good image out of a lens then it's a manufacturing cock up. GiovanniAprea wrote:
In my opinion you bought the wrong lens for the scenario, the 58G is not, as you call it, plug and play, I had similar experience at the beginning, it was kind of meh, nothing memorable until you have it all set properly, which I didn't master yet, but for sure when the subject is in the center spot and the aperture vs distance matches it's pure poetry.
I am not saying the 50/1.2 isn't good, anzi, so good that I hope one day to get it but owning the 58G and not doing events I can live with it
JadedWriter wrote:
So I take it you like the lens?
Yes, I definitely like it! The lens is flawless in almost everything! I can only write down his weight as a minus. All that remains is to learn how to work well with this focal length. Years of working on a bundle of 35 + 105 mm do not allow me to effectively use 50 mm. 58 I used quite rarely because of the unstable result and the style of shooting on it was closer to 85 mm.
Alexander Ross wrote:
Yes, I definitely like it! The lens is flawless in almost everything! I can only write down his weight as a minus. All that remains is to learn how to work well with this focal length. Years of working on a bundle of 35 + 105 mm do not allow me to effectively use 50 mm. 58 I used quite rarely because of the unstable result and the style of shooting on it was closer to 85 mm.
F786786 wrote:
After all going through all of these pages, Youtube videos from various photo gurus and the rest, it appears to me that the 50 1.8s provides the ideal lens.
Top notch build quality.
Top notch image.
Much lighter and manageable for prolonged/daily carry.
significantly less expensive.
For a tripod mounted or indoor portrait session, maybe the 1.2s may be slightly superior but for every day use and still a 9.9/10 image quality, the 1.8s is my choice.
The 1.8 S is a very good lens. Small, light, sharp, and well corrected. The 1.2 gives off a different look.
The Z 50mm f1.2 is not a landscape or architecture lens. In my case I use it as a portrait lens for family gathering, parties and the like. So weight is not an issue in my application. I think in my case the extra cost for the better isolation and marginal sharpness over the f/1.8 ( not sure about that since I do not own the f/1.8) I think it very well worth the extra cost. Maybe if the Z 35mm f/1.2 was available I would have bought it instead but no regret at all.
