mach250 wrote:
I was thinking that but the sensor plane isn't moving. Only thing I can think of is focus breathing in one of the lenses.
Location of the sensor plane isn’t relevant, location of the entrance pupil is what matters and there is no reason to expect that to be the same for the two lenses. In fact good reason the expect the 1.2 entrance pupil to be further from the sensor plane than the 1.8. But of course small focal length differences are also very likely as are differences in focus breathing.
Just came back from a trip and it will take me awhile to sort through all the pictures but here are a few
with 50/1.2s and Z7 ii. All shots at f1.2, some adjustment in ACR but no sharpening added.
A friend of mine was shooting R5 with 50/1.2 RF side by side a bit. 50/1.2 RF is a bit shorter and a bit lighter. I think it takes 77mm filter rather than 82mm. Brief look shows both lenses to be very competitive and I think any difference is not going to be very significant but I have to say that I much much prefer Z7 ii jpg output over R5. Too bad he was shooting mostly with 85/1.2L and his 85/1.2 RF arrived 2 days too late for the trip. Would have loved to see how that lens perform.
Just for fun, I took my Noct Nikkor 58/.95 on the same trip and did a little side by side shooting.
Not exactly the same setup but shot at the same location. Shot wide open at f0.95.
@suteetat: Wow, that is an impressive display of how darn good the 58 Noct is -- thank you for including it! That frame really stands out from the other two 50 primes for me -- the models facial features and sunglasses seem sharper at that "half-body" portrait distance while DoF is clearly shallower; and the bokeh appears even a tad creamier than the 1.2, which is saying something I wish that Noct were AF -- I could justify buying one for myself if it were...
That Noct is a special lens. The sun is just behind the model in the f1.2 image, which will reduce the contrast on the model, but you can still tell that the Noct turns it up a notch in overall optical quality, and the extra compression helps with blurring the background. Phenomenal lens. And it should be for the price you pay in weight and cost.
The relative convenience of the f1.2 S (weight and AF) takes my money when given the choice between the two. I do envy those who own the Noct nonetheless.
Just to clarify my own position from these image shares so far...
I *want* the Noct, but given its size, weight and the fact it is manual focus, I know I wouldn't use it very much -- it would take a dedicated purpose which I don't have at the moment.
While the 1.2S is a stunner too, I personally don't see enough extra juice over the 1.8S I already own to justify the expense, size or weight *for the type of imaging I do with a 50.* Plus I also have the AiS 50/1.2 -- it's not even in the same zipcode optically as any of the S lenses, but it does render in its own beautiful way when I want that look.
The trick pony here for me is the 58G lens -- if I found one at a bargain price, I'd probably experiment with one. However, I have an adapted cheap 60mm "Petzval" lens that performs quite sharp in the center while supplying an interesting "swirly" backrground bokeh when I want something unique -- it's just that sometimes that swirl is distracting --and it is manual focus again-- so the 58G remains of interest...
gear-nut wrote:
While the 1.2S is a stunner too, I personally don't see enough extra juice over the 1.8S.
I think this sums up the homework I've been doing the last few days. That's for me at least.
I acquired the Noct first because of a very positive hands-on experience and my regular dealer just happened to have one en-route that a client canceled after waiting for way too long (3mths).
While the 1.2S kinda sits between the 1.8S and the Noct, from my perspective... the "middle ground" where it's neither too heavy nor too convenient doesn't really work for me. If I were to go out for shooting, I'd either want to be as light as possible or don't care about it at all. If I were to own all 3, I'd think the 1.2S would be the one least used.
Especially when the 1.8S is so good that I'm not really giving up a lot of IQ other than the faster aperture comparing to the 1.2S.
For anyone with a 50 1.2 S that finds the footprint rather huge but still like to use a hood for protection. I scientifically (accidentally) discovered that the HB-87 from the 24-70 2.8 S fits directly on the 50 1.2
azenis wrote:
While the 1.2S kinda sits between the 1.8S and the Noct, from my perspective... the "middle ground" where it's neither too heavy nor too convenient doesn't really work for me. If I were to go out for shooting, I'd either want to be as light as possible or don't care about it at all. If I were to own all 3, I'd think the 1.2S would be the one least used.
Agree... The 1.2S gets about 70% of the way to the Noct look-wise, has the *huge* benefit of maintaining AF -- but then is 8mm wider FoV and only got 70% of the way to the Noct look . The 58G gets maybe 80% of the way to the Noct look (from my perspective) and has the same FoV, but isn't as razor sharp as the either of the 50S lenses. So this whole exercise is a set of tradeoffs for sure...
End of day, I do like them all for what they can and do, do, and there's no simple right or wrong choices. Given what I've seen and if money were no object, I would own all of them just because I'd be able to grab whichever one suited my fancy that day to shoot with.
If I could only choose one, it would be the 50/1.8S simply because it's the one I know would make it into my bag more than any of the others -- they would likely spend most of their time in the camera cabinet until I had a specific shoot I wanted them for.
I used Noct Nikkor with Megadap adapter + F to M mount adapter so autofocus with eye focus would work.
Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 nowaday is probably around double the price of 50/1.2s but much much lighter and the best benefit is that if you buy one today, prices most likely will remain stable or up unlike 50/1.2s
exif data on the picture will say 35/1.4 as I forgot to reprogram exif data when I put the lens on. Regardless, Megadap data will only let me putin 50mm and not 58mm as focal lenght anyhow.
suteetat wrote:
......
Just for fun, I took my Noct Nikkor 58/.95 on the same trip and did a little side by side shooting.
Not exactly the same setup but shot at the same location. Shot wide open at f0.95.
Very nice! Love the light and colours in these images.
But I think the subject to camera distance in the 50/0.95 is rather less than the 50/1.2 shot; too much so to make this a valid comparison. Do you agree?
Alistair1 wrote:
Very nice! Love the light and colours in these images.
But I think the subject to camera distance in the 50/0.95 is rather less than the 50/1.2 shot; too much so to make this a valid comparison. Do you agree?
The distance between camera and subject is similar but not identical and at different angle. The main difference of angle of view is from 50mm vs 58mm. The distance is limited by rows of flowers so I cannot move closer or further away from the model freely unless I walked all over the flowers but I was not standing in exactly the same spot for both shots so there could be some difference in lateral distance as well.
I did not want to do tripod test as I was on vacation and just want to try out both lenses in a more casual way than any real controlled environment. There are already other examples that are done in controlled environment already.
Kasper6188 wrote:
Couple test shots from 50 1.2/1.8/58noct/581.4G. These were shot on a tripod in the same location, shutter adjusted for exposure all shot wide open. I was planning on going outside to set something up from different distances but the snow is coming down pretty hard. If you want to see any specific kind of test let me know and I might be able to snap some pics.
Thank you for taking the time to set up and demonstrate those four different lenses under a fairly controlled situation. Very telling indeed. The resulting photos supports what I have always felt about the super fast glass. "They ain't worth the money." The variance of the bokeh from the f1.8 to the not 58 is so minuscule I would never consider paying the 13 times difference in price between the f1.8 and the Noct. The practical and reasonable side of me keeps saying, of all the important elements that go into making a great image a 'great image', such as lighting, composition and timing (for event photography) bokeh contributes so little to that equation that I could never justify spending the money. Nor convince back into carrying weight of a Noct or even the f1.2. Owning a Noct or even the f1.2 will not improve my photography or make be a better photographer. I would be far better served by improving my lighting, composition and timing skills to take my photography to another level.
azenis wrote:
I think this sums up the homework I've been doing the last few days. That's for me at least.
I acquired the Noct first because of a very positive hands-on experience and my regular dealer just happened to have one en-route that a client canceled after waiting for way too long (3mths).
While the 1.2S kinda sits between the 1.8S and the Noct, from my perspective... the "middle ground" where it's neither too heavy nor too convenient doesn't really work for me. If I were to go out for shooting, I'd either want to be as light as possible or don't care about it at all. If I were to own all 3, I'd think the 1.2S would be the one least used.
Especially when the 1.8S is so good that I'm not really giving up a lot of IQ other than the faster aperture comparing to the 1.2S....Show more →
There is a great case for the 1.2S. It's an AF lens, unlike the Noct that you have to deal with the weight of a big telephoto while fiddling with the manual focus to get your precise focus point. But I have to agree that the Noct is something special while the 1.2S is somewhat more "pedestrian."
hiepphotog wrote:
There is a great case for the 1.2S. It's an AF lens, unlike the Noct that you have to deal with the weight of a big telephoto while fiddling with the manual focus to get your precise focus point. But I have to agree that the Noct is something special while the 1.2S is somewhat more "pedestrian."
I would agree with your assessment but pedestrian is relative Actually the first few days, I was so impressed with 50/1.2s that I was thinking, may be I don’t really need the Noct as it might only be marginally better with significant price to pay in term of cost and convenience. However, after shooting side by side, there is still good argument for the Noct eventhough it is much more difficult to use.
Size and weight of 50/1.2s do not bother me much as I am used to D850 with Sigma Art 135/1.8 or Nikon 105/1.4e or Otus 85/1.4.
I think the weight are all within a few hundred grams of each other. I added an L-plate to my Z7ii and I am able to hold
Z7ii with 50/1.2s one hand if neccessary at least long enough to take some shots.
I wish that Noct were AF -- I could justify buying one for myself if it were... 
. The 58G gets maybe 80% of the way to the Noct look (from my perspective) and has the same FoV, but isn't as razor sharp as the either of the 50S lenses. So this whole exercise is a set of tradeoffs for sure... 
