urbanwild wrote:
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!
Thanks man, you're too kind! Honestly the 58mm 1.4G is my all time favorite lens so I'm definitely bias off the bat. In terms of rendering I think it really comes down to preference and I definitely prefer the bokeh and the transition from the focus area to the out of focus areas in a picture with the 58mm. This comes with a huge drop off in sharpness from the center of the frame when shooting wide open, but for me I'm ok with that. These characteristics have allowed me to be more creative with my shots. I like that the lens is fairly small and light although it bulks up with the FTZ adapter on the Z bodies. Speaking of the 58mm 1.4G and the FTZ adapter as I'm sure most people know it becomes way more behaved then it did on any F mount camera that I've used it on in regards to nailing focus.
The 50mm 1.2S is similar to a lot of the other S line prime lenses, very sharp wide open and technically it checks off all the boxes in what you want in a modern prime. In terms of rendering I like it, it's super sharp and the bokeh is smooth. I'm still getting use to the handling due to the size of the lens and the focus ring being so large (but so smooth). It's hard to describe but it's a little awkward for me to hold this lens with the Z7. One thing that I'm starting to really like is the control ring (this is my first lens that has it). By default the control ring is setup to control the aperture which was an issue initially because I mostly shoot wide open and I kept bumping it by mistake. I changed the control ring to exposure compensation and now I'm loving it, it's allowing me to quickly dial in exposures to my liking from shot to shot which is nice. So overall I like the lens but I'm still trying to figure it out to unlock all of it's potential.
twistacatz wrote:
Thanks man, you're too kind! Honestly the 58mm 1.4G is my all time favorite lens so I'm definitely bias off the bat. In terms of rendering I think it really comes down to preference and I definitely prefer the bokeh and the transition from the focus area to the out of focus areas in a picture with the 58mm. This comes with a huge drop off in sharpness from the center of the frame when shooting wide open, but for me I'm ok with that. These characteristics have allowed me to be more creative with my shots. I like that the lens is fairly small and light although it bulks up with the FTZ adapter on the Z bodies. Speaking of the 58mm 1.4G and the FTZ adapter as I'm sure most people know it becomes way more behaved then it did on any F mount camera that I've used it on in regards to nailing focus.
The 50mm 1.2S is similar to a lot of the other S line prime lenses, very sharp wide open and technically it checks off all the boxes in what you want in a modern prime. In terms of rendering I like it, it's super sharp and the bokeh is smooth. I'm still getting use to the handling due to the size of the lens and the focus ring being so large (but so smooth). It's hard to describe but it's a little awkward for me to hold this lens with the Z7. One thing that I'm starting to really like is the control ring (this is my first lens that has it). By default the control ring is setup to control the aperture which was an issue initially because I mostly shoot wide open and I kept bumping it by mistake. I changed the control ring to exposure compensation and now I'm loving it, it's allowing me to quickly dial in exposures to my liking from shot to shot which is nice. So overall I like the lens but I'm still trying to figure it out to unlock all of it's potential.
Nikon Z 7
NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S
ƒ/1.2 50.0 mm 1/320 ISO 64...Show more →
Excellent feedback thanks (and beautiful colours as always)! Once you're feeling up to speed with the 50mm f1.2S, would you mind doing a comparison of images between the 50mm f1.2S and the 58mm f1.4G? I think the bokeh will be similar, the compression slightly different, the sharpness less on the 58mm......but I'm super curious about the 3D feel with the 58mm (is it really the lens or can the same be said with the 50mm f1.2S?).
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 ...
Thanks for this! I'm sure I'd quickly grab a 1.2S if the price, size and weight were much lower or if the 1.8S wasn't as good as it is! Even money aside, I'm wondering if I'd lug the 1.2S around for general use or if it would stay on the shelf. I think it's a no-brainer for boudoir use. The 85mm f1.4 (and even the f1.8) offers more bokeh and less facial distortion for portraits otherwise. Just a different perspective. Hard for me to put my fingers on the utility of the f1.2 over the f1.8 which is so light and just as sharp (or sharper).
With that said, the images will roll in and I'm sure I'll still ponder away
Exactly. I have my control ring on the 24-70/2.8 set to exposure compensation, which is kind of a custom ISO dial in manual (i.e. "M") mode.
P.S. You may just add the exif data to your images, that way you don't have to type in the settings.
twistacatz wrote:
Thanks man, you're too kind! Honestly the 58mm 1.4G is my all time favorite lens so I'm definitely bias off the bat. In terms of rendering I think it really comes down to preference and I definitely prefer the bokeh and the transition from the focus area to the out of focus areas in a picture with the 58mm. This comes with a huge drop off in sharpness from the center of the frame when shooting wide open, but for me I'm ok with that. These characteristics have allowed me to be more creative with my shots. I like that the lens is fairly small and light although it bulks up with the FTZ adapter on the Z bodies. Speaking of the 58mm 1.4G and the FTZ adapter as I'm sure most people know it becomes way more behaved then it did on any F mount camera that I've used it on in regards to nailing focus.
The 50mm 1.2S is similar to a lot of the other S line prime lenses, very sharp wide open and technically it checks off all the boxes in what you want in a modern prime. In terms of rendering I like it, it's super sharp and the bokeh is smooth. I'm still getting use to the handling due to the size of the lens and the focus ring being so large (but so smooth). It's hard to describe but it's a little awkward for me to hold this lens with the Z7. One thing that I'm starting to really like is the control ring (this is my first lens that has it). By default the control ring is setup to control the aperture which was an issue initially because I mostly shoot wide open and I kept bumping it by mistake. I changed the control ring to exposure compensation and now I'm loving it, it's allowing me to quickly dial in exposures to my liking from shot to shot which is nice. So overall I like the lens but I'm still trying to figure it out to unlock all of it's potential.
At f/1.2, photos of single people almost attain a kind of miniature look, so I would often actually prefer f/1.8, and have f/1.2 for (some) portraits as well as lower magnification (i.e. larger object) images.
urbanwild wrote:
Excellent feedback thanks (and beautiful colours as always)! Once you're feeling up to speed with the 50mm f1.2S, would you mind doing a comparison of images between the 50mm f1.2S and the 58mm f1.4G? I think the bokeh will be similar, the compression slightly different, the sharpness less on the 58mm......but I'm super curious about the 3D feel with the 58mm (is it really the lens or can the same be said with the 50mm f1.2S?).
Cheers!
Sure thing, I'll try to get that comparison done for you this weekend. From my observations subjects don't look 3D with the 50mm 1.2S.
Hm, I'm interested in this observation the Z 50/1.2 doesn't have a "3D look", which is kind of what you expect from these type of lenses, and what you get typically get with Leica, Zeiss glass, and I think with the Canon RF 50/1.2.
I'd love to see a RF 50/1.2 on a R5 vs Z 50/1.2 on Z7ii shoot out :-)
patotts wrote:
Hm, I'm interested in this observation the Z 50/1.2 doesn't have a "3D look", which is kind of what you expect from these type of lenses, and what you get typically get with Leica, Zeiss glass, and I think with the Canon RF 50/1.2.
I'd love to see a RF 50/1.2 on a R5 vs Z 50/1.2 on Z7ii shoot out :-)
The phrase "3D look" is very subjective. My comment was geared more towards my early observations of the 50mm 1.2S vs the 58mm 1.4G. I think by your description they both have the 3D look, but the 58mm 1.4G does it better. But please take my opinion with a grain of salt as I've already mentioned that I'm bias .
urbanwild wrote:
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!...Show more →
Thanks a lot. =) Oh, I may have missphrased that. I was more making a point that the 50mm 1.2 is just way too heavy for me, I actually love my 58mm and appreciate it more and more the more I shoot with it. =)
twistacatz wrote:
The phrase "3D look" is very subjective. My comment was geared more towards my early observations of the 50mm 1.2S vs the 58mm 1.4G. I think by your description they both have the 3D look, but the 58mm 1.4G does it better. But please take my opinion with a grain of salt as I've already mentioned that I'm bias .
Very, very true, my friend. Certain lenses has that je-ne-sais-quoi "pop" and separation which creates a certain look, in some viewers' eyes, which we may refer to as a "3D look". It is a bit like trying to define "good bokeh" ;-)
But again, if you have both the 58/1.4 and 50/1.2 and the ability to compare and contrast a bit, it would be much appreciated.
twistacatz wrote:
Sure thing, I'll try to get that comparison done for you this weekend. From my observations subjects don't look 3D with the 50mm 1.2S.
No rush but thanks so much when you do have a chance!
GoroMajima wrote:
Thanks a lot. =) Oh, I may have missphrased that. I was more making a point that the 50mm 1.2 is just way too heavy for me, I actually love my 58mm and appreciate it more and more the more I shoot with it. =)
Thanks and glad to hear! Yeah, I've only recently purchased it and haven't nailed down the approach with it yet but my suspicion is that I'm going to appreciate it more, not less, over the years as these lenses come out. We'll see...
gear-nut wrote:
Are you using the anamorphic to get the aspect ratio? I'm not sure I understand the logic in using one for stills...
Ohhh. There are many reasons to use Anamorphic lenses ranging from a cine/video deviation to a different look or bokeh or flare or many other reasons. When I have a set constructed for a particular cine/video scene using Ana or 16/4 or Pana or whatever, it is a normal progression to shoot the stills in the same scene conditions.
It is also very conducive to insert 3d animation on such wide horizontal footage when a 35 focal gives an 18 coverage and a 50 focal gives you...... etc
I appreciate that you do not like such treatment but I hope I answered some of your concerns.
Okay, thanks for explaining -- artistic choice to take a $2000 lens and stick a $500 distortion filter over it. While I personally don't see any benefit in the image from doing that, I respect it as your artistic choice.
What are your thoughts vs the 58mm f1.4G? Your shots with that lens REALLY showed that 3D pop and rich colours!
... 
