suteetat wrote:
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.
Would love to hear the differences you found between the Noct and the 1.2S. And that's why I put "pedestrian" in quotation marks. It's only "pedestrian" on paper since this is not the first AF 50/1.2 of this generation, while the Noct is the only modern 0.95 lens out there. Ya I wouldn't count any of the MF 0.95 lenses as modern.
azenis wrote:
I guess it's not so much about the Noct.
People who can justify buying the Noct will buy it regardless. The comparison is between the F1.2S and F1.8S.
And given that one already owns the Noct, I don't see the F1.2S justifiable.
Maybe if I don't have the Noct, I'd pick the F1.2S up... but as a combo... I'd stick with Noct/F1.8S combo.
I just made a case for having all 3 . They are different enough IMO just from the technical standpoint.
azenis wrote:
I guess it's not so much about the Noct.
People who can justify buying the Noct will buy it regardless. The comparison is between the F1.2S and F1.8S.
And given that one already owns the Noct, I don't see the F1.2S justifiable.
Maybe if I don't have the Noct, I'd pick the F1.2S up... but as a combo... I'd stick with Noct/F1.8S combo.
For me, I have all 3, .95, 1.2 and 1.8 S. Basically, I don't see myself taking 1.8s out much anymore.
When I want AF, 1.2s will be just fine and if the occasion permits, Noct would be great.
1.8S would be relegate to when I want smaller and lighter setup but really, if I want to go small and light, 24-50 could do the job with more flexibility abide with more compromised in IQ. If I do landscape, 1.8s would make more sense than Noct or 1.2s but I think 24-70/2.8s would be my choice.
The only time where 1.8s would shine would be when I need small and light under low light situation. But that starts to make 1.8s a bit more of a niche use.
Regardless, I think Nikon now has 3 very strong 50mm prime and 4 zooms that cover 50mm focal lenght to fit pretty much all kind of budgets and you can pick and choose. If you are into 50mm, this is a good time to be in Nikon's camp
hiepphotog wrote:
Would love to hear the differences you found between the Noct and the 1.2S. And that's why I put "pedestrian" in quotation marks. It's only "pedestrian" on paper since this is not the first AF 50/1.2 of this generation, while the Noct is the only modern 0.95 lens out there. Ya I wouldn't count any of the MF 0.95 lenses as modern.
So far beside weight, cost and AF, there is not much of advantage that 1.2s has over Noct. 50/1.2s does have less cateye bokeh ball than Noct at f.95. I have not tested Noct at f1.2 to compare though.
Wide open, 50/1.2s seems a bit sharper to me than Noct but it could be the razor thin dof that make it that much more difficult to nail perfect focus. However, in comparison to Noctilux 50/.95, TTArtisan 50/.95 and all my other F1.2 lenses including Noct Nikkor 58/1.2, it is much easier to achieve accurate focus on Noct Nikkor 58/.95 just because the lens is that much sharper so you can see under focus magnifier quite easily. I just wish Nikon would release focus magnifier when I press shutter button like GFX or A7r IV. Having to press one extra button to see the full view before pressing shutter button sometimes is enough to get the focus slightly off target when handholding.
Anyone else's rubber lifting on their WEEK OLD 50mm 1.2 S yet This is unbelievable, I am not very happy about this. Looks like my 50 has 2 mosquito bites
Kasper6188 wrote:
Anyone else's rubber lifting on their WEEK OLD 50mm 1.2 S yet This is unbelievable, I am not very happy about this. Looks like my 50 has 2 mosquito bites
No issues here. Can you exchange it for another one?
Do bear in mind that it seems the 50/.1.2 S is available in small number worldwide with an average of 5 units for smallish countries.
On the other hand, I had to disable the Display ring as I was constantly bumping with my hand. It is more useful for video operation with a smooth Aperture functionality. I don't even use the L-Fn button.
Well, after months of relative Covid worry free, we are just about to undergo significant lock down so this might be a last chance for me to play with 50/1.2s for awhile. So at my favourite restaurant where the chef is not camera shy
50/1.2s @ f2.8
50/1.2s@ f1.2
Throwing in Noct Nikkor 58/.95@ f.95 from the same sitting position
I had disabled the lens display button as I could not find any use for it.....until few days ago shooting a previous setup.
The lens display button can show depth of field and aperture but I found that it is very practical to show the distance when using a "double focus Anamorphic" lens for abstract and more specifically for the landscape photographers as no more distance guessing involved......
GoroMajima wrote:
Lovely pics so far, the rendering is amazing. I would be happy switching my 58mm 1.4g for this one,
but I am already struggling with the 35mm 1.4g + FTZ Adapter weight-wise.
I would be interested in a full body pic with busier background. That is where the 1.8s didn't do very well. http://artsphlog.blogspot.com/2019/04/review-nikkor-z-50mm18s.html
I'm really curious between the 58mm f1.4g and the 50mm f1.2S.....your pictures with the 58mm f1.4G are tremendous. Why would you consider parting with it?
As fantastic as the 50mm f1.2 is, the images I'm seeing look pretty perfect but perhaps less interesting vs the 58mm f1.4G which has a more unique look. Right now I'm exploring all options but I may just stay with the 58mm f1.4G for character and the 50mm f1.8S for the sharpness. I really don't think the 50mm f1.2S will have any advantage at f1.8 or above vs the 50mm f1.8S. If I were a boudoir shooter, the 50mm f1.2S would be on my mind, but it's harder to justify otherwise......what am I missing?!!!
Would love to hear some opinions on this! Thanks everyone!
Nikon Z 7
NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S
ƒ/1.2 50.0 mm 1/160 ISO 160
Yeah, but you seem to make all the lenses shine What are your thoughts vs the 58mm f1.4G? Your shots with that lens REALLY showed that 3D pop and rich colours!
gear-nut wrote:
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... ...Show more →
The more 50mm f1.2S shots I'm seeing, the more I'm wondering if the 58mm f1.4G is a better match for me. The sharpness is a bit maddening, but the 3D pop and the feeling like you're there is real. Curious if others find the 50mm f1.2S to be stunning yet 2D / less unique vs other lenses (Sigma for example)? Might just be my mood of the day
My take is that optical perfection rendering extreme detail corner to corner leaves an image with too few structural components to pull your eye to the center or subject; thus the photographer needs to rely on compositional components to create that motion. Shallow DoF on it's own will pull the eye to whatever is in focus, but with a really good lens, that can include too much stuff outside the main subject area that happens to be on that plane.
So now a lens that isn't perfect, especially as you near the edges and especially one that transitions smoothly and gradually from a perfect central area to not so much at the edges, has fewer distracting elements outside the subject area. Render that lower optical outer edge perfection with a creamy smoothness and voila, you have a wonderful art tool. I think the 58G is pretty much a poster child for describing a lens that behaves like that, and hence its popularity -- but it takes time behind it to master it and learn to avoid its quirks. There are of course other lenses that do it too, but few with AF do it as well or as uniquely.
My position is the 50/1.2S is near perfect optically so manages the subject isolation primarily from shallow DoF. My issue is the 50/1.8 does a very good job of that too, albeit not quite as obviously. So while the 1.2 has a hair shallower PoF I don't see it as a enough shallower to truly distinguish it from the 1.8S at 1/3 the size, weight and cost. The actual difference between f1.2 and 1.8 in a 50mm lens on FF is about 50%, meaning wherever the 50/1.2 has a 2" DoF, the 1.8 will have about a 3" DoF. So sure, a good imagist can put that difference to good use, but how often and to what real end?
Plus now consider the DoF difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is only about 20% or 2" vs not quite 2-½". So like you, I see something like the 58G being the more flexible creative tool in that focal range. Even the 50/1.4G has enough relatively lesser edge performance --and gets there pretty smoothly-- to give it some wide open character that can set it apart from the S options, similar with Sigma's Art or pre-Art, and any of those are a lot cheaper than even the 58G.
My .02 only. And admittedly, the lenses I mentioned can't claim f1.2 status ...
My take is that optical perfection rendering extreme detail corner to corner leaves an image with too few structural components to pull your eye to the center or subject; thus the photographer needs to rely on compositional components to create that motion. Shallow DoF on it's own will pull the eye to whatever is in focus, but with a really good lens, that can include too much stuff outside the main subject area that happens to be on that plane.
So now a lens that isn't perfect, especially as you near the edges and especially one that transitions smoothly and gradually from a perfect central area to not so much at the edges, has fewer distracting elements outside the subject area. Render that lower optical outer edge perfection with a creamy smoothness and voila, you have a wonderful art tool. I think the 58G is pretty much a poster child for describing a lens that behaves like that, and hence its popularity -- but it takes time behind it to master it and learn to avoid its quirks. There are of course other lenses that do it too, but few with AF do it as well or as uniquely.
My position is the 50/1.2S is near perfect optically so manages the subject isolation primarily from shallow DoF. My issue is the 50/1.8 does a very good job of that too, albeit not quite as obviously. So while the 1.2 has a hair shallower PoF I don't see it as a enough shallower to truly distinguish it from the 1.8S at 1/3 the size, weight and cost. The actual difference between f1.2 and 1.8 in a 50mm lens on FF is about 50%, meaning wherever the 50/1.2 has a 2" DoF, the 1.8 will have about a 3" DoF. So sure, a good imagist can put that difference to good use, but how often and to what real end?
Plus now consider the DoF difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is only about 20% or 2" vs not quite 2-½". So like you, I see something like the 58G being the more flexible creative tool in that focal range. Even the 50/1.4G has enough relatively lesser edge performance --and gets there pretty smoothly-- to give it some wide open character that can set it apart from the S options, similar with Sigma's Art or pre-Art, and any of those are a lot cheaper than even the 58G.
My .02 only. And admittedly, the lenses I mentioned can't claim f1.2 status ...
Yet this only works well if your subject is indeed in the center. If it is off-center, such a lens will induce an imbalance in the perceived focus on the subject.
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.
. They are different enough IMO just from the technical standpoint.
This is unbelievable, I am not very happy about this. 
Looks like my 50 has 2 mosquito bites 
...