Have done some comparisons between Canon RF 50 1.2 and this Nikon 50 1.2S this week, since I could test a unit from a friend.
My quick thoughts are :
- The Canon is way sharper on focused subjects, so 3D pop is a bit more pronounced since subject is insanely sharp wide open.
- Nikon purple fringing is way more pronounced (and can affect skin tones heavily on harsh conditions).
- Bokeh is a bit smoother on Nikon but marginally.
I shoot with both brands so I don't have any preference of any kind. I don't think one is crap and the other is an absolute winner since it's a matter of taste. Both are amazing lenses for a 1.2 aperture. Just informative stuff, as I'm a 50mm lover
Here are some examples side by side, so you can judge by yourself : Canon R6 Left, Nikon Z6 Right. So 20ish Mpix
Conditions are on the field, so aperture priority, hand held etc. Obviously each camera has it's own way to expose and render colors. I did post edit images in LR in order to have the same rendering, or kind of since those brands don't handle colors and contrasts the same way. Sharpness is processed at '60' (basic is 40 on my version of LR).
Have done some comparisons between Canon RF 50 1.2 and this Nikon 50 1.2S this week, since I could test a unit from a friend.
My quick thoughts are :
- The Canon is way sharper on focused subjects, so 3D pop is a bit more pronounced since subject is insanely sharp wide open.
- Nikon purple fringing is way more pronounced (and can affect skin tones heavily on harsh conditions).
- Bokeh is a bit smoother on Nikon but marginally.
- Focus operations are way more quieter on Nikon, indeed silent (a real advantage for videos).
I shoot with both brands so I don't have any preference of any kind. I don't think one is crap and the other is an absolute winner since it's a matter of taste. Both are amazing lenses for a 1.2 aperture. Just informative stuff, as I'm a 50mm lover
Here are some examples side by side, so you can judge by yourself : Canon R6 Left, Nikon Z6 Right. So 20ish Mpix
Conditions are on the field, so aperture priority, hand held etc. Obviously each camera has it's own way to expose and render colors. I did post edit images in LR in order to have the same rendering, or kind of since those brands don't handle colors and contrasts the same way. Sharpness is processed at '60' (basic is 40 on my version of LR).
...Show more →
If you are getting that much softness from a low resolution camera, it would be intolerable with a z7 or r5. Unless stabilization is not working (tripod?), I would send the Nikon back.
If you are getting that much softness from a low resolution camera, it would be intolerable with a z7 or r5. Unless stabilization is not working (tripod?), I would send the Nikon back.
It could be a human faulty thing as I don't have a good technique , but it's not just one random shot, it's an entire session of shooting.
When you look at the Nikon pictures, it's really sharp, it's just that when you compare them to the Canon by taking the 'same' pictures then it's not as sharp.
It's not my own Nikon so I don't have it anymore in my hands. But if someone who have tested both can confirm me this unit is 'soft' then I will tell my friend to send it back, or maybe I got an exceptional Canon lens...who knows
Again, I'm not really sure this Nikon is wrong, the level of quality is on par with the different reviews I see here and there...But I can be totally wrong...
There is something wrong with the picture. On the 2nd + 3rd facial 100% magnification, the Canon showed the eye, eye brown, most of the nose, lip, chin and forehead are all in focus. On the Nikon, I don't see anything that is in critical focus at all. Kind of strange. I don't have Z6 though but shooting with Z7 ii and 100% magnification of facial shots on my 50/1.2s + Z7 ii looked a lot sharper.
Either the Nikon is not in perfect focus, shakiness or something is seriously wrong with the lens, I think. On the last sitting down pictures, even the shoes on Canon looked to be more in focus.
On photographyblog picture of the old man wiht Z7 ii, you can see the eye, the detail of eye brow, forehead wrinkle much better. I doubt it is the difference is dued to 24 vs 46mp only.
When I compared it to my friend's R5+50/1.2 RF, center sharpness is not that different. If anything, R5 has a AA filter which could make the picture slightly softer.
It appears your lens/camera combo is FRONT focusing. The first man's right hand and sleeve look in focus as does the second guys jacket zipper and cup of coffee...
suteetat wrote:
There is something wrong with the picture. On the 2nd + 3rd facial 100% magnification, the Canon showed the eye, eye brown, most of the nose, lip, chin and forehead are all in focus. On the Nikon, I don't see anything that is in critical focus at all. Kind of strange. I don't have Z6 though but shooting with Z7 ii and 100% magnification of facial shots on my 50/1.2s + Z7 ii looked a lot sharper.
Either the Nikon is not in perfect focus, shakiness or something is seriously wrong with the lens, I think. On the last sitting down pictures, even the shoes on Canon looked to be more in focus.
On photographyblog picture of the old man wiht Z7 ii, you can see the eye, the detail of eye brow, forehead wrinkle much better. I doubt it is the difference is dued to 24 vs 46mp only.
When I compared it to my friend's R5+50/1.2 RF, center sharpness is not that different. If anything, R5 has a AA filter which could make the picture slightly softer. ...Show more →
That what I expected to read, an opinion of someone who have tested both
Thanks, I will tell my friend to send it back
First I want to thank every one for reacting to this comparison, it's important for my friend to have a good unit if it's a bad copy...So thanks you very much for alerting on issues
cbreiland wrote:
My biggest takeaway is how much better the sky looks on the canon in the first two shots.
Don't pay attention to color and exposure rendition, it's just the way cameras sees the scene. Canon tends to underexpose while Nikon tends to expose correctly. So pictures with an Aperture priority will end with different shutter speeds. (1/8000 vs 1/2000).
My fault, I wasn't focused on getting the exact same values, it was just a quick field comparison.
So my friend told me that when subject is near, it's tack sharp, but after 2m he begins to see less sharpness on subjects (maybe a Z6 thing?), still the images produced are sharper than his 50 1.8S. He will get in touch with Nikon service...Let's see what they will answer
I've done some more investigations to compare the sharpness thing and I ended up with the fact that I don't see any difference in sharpness between my friend's unit and the portrait pictures posted I can find here and there :
This level of sharpness is absolutely fine for a 1.2 lens and I tend to prefer smooth renderings as it can be a nightmare for skin retouching, but if I compare it to the Canon RF, it's not the same league when it comes to sharpness :
this is my own picture, don't pay attention on editing, just sharpness, it's at '60' on LR ('40' is base level).
Have done some comparisons between Canon RF 50 1.2 and this Nikon 50 1.2S this week, since I could test a unit from a friend.
My quick thoughts are :
- The Canon is way sharper on focused subjects, so 3D pop is a bit more pronounced since subject is insanely sharp wide open.
- Nikon purple fringing is way more pronounced (and can affect skin tones heavily on harsh conditions).
- Bokeh is a bit smoother on Nikon but marginally.
- Focus operations are way more quieter on Nikon, indeed silent (a real advantage for videos).
I shoot with both brands so I don't have any preference of any kind. I don't think one is crap and the other is an absolute winner since it's a matter of taste. Both are amazing lenses for a 1.2 aperture. Just informative stuff, as I'm a 50mm lover
Here are some examples side by side, so you can judge by yourself : Canon R6 Left, Nikon Z6 Right. So 20ish Mpix
Conditions are on the field, so aperture priority, hand held etc. Obviously each camera has it's own way to expose and render colors. I did post edit images in LR in order to have the same rendering, or kind of since those brands don't handle colors and contrasts the same way. Sharpness is processed at '60' (basic is 40 on my version of LR).
...Show more →
From everything I've seen online the Canon 1.2 is a slightly sharper @1.2 but the difference isn't that drastic - more of a contrast difference rather than sharpness. Something odd is going on here. I'd be interested to see your friend test all four corners to see if something is misaligned.
The canon 50 1.2 looks darker because it has a massive amount of vignette.
Buckeye2604 wrote:
From everything I've seen online the Canon 1.2 is a slightly sharper @1.2 but the difference isn't that drastic - more of a contrast difference rather than sharpness. Something odd is going on here. I'd be interested to see your friend test all four corners to see if something is misaligned.
The canon 50 1.2 looks darker because it has a massive amount of vignette.
Yes, I asked him to send me RAW files of the famous wall picture test at different distances to check is the lens is decentered. Stay in touch !
Ok so we ran some tests 1m, 2m and 3m away from a wooden straight wall. From 1.2 to 2.8 apertures each.
I'll put here the tests at 2m at 1.2 and 2.8.
Here is what we found:
sharpness at 1.2 is never really sharp at the center at it becomes worst as the distance grows.
Sharpness on the edges is never sharp at 1.2, even 2.8 it's not tack sharp.
RAW -> LR no edit appart from exposure value at 1.2 because it's a bit to bright.
Ok so we ran some tests 1m, 2m and 3m away from a wooden straight wall. From 1.2 to 2.8 apertures each.
I'll put here the tests at 2m at 1.2 and 2.8.
Here is what we found:
sharpness at 1.2 is never really sharp at the center at it becomes worst as the distance grows.
Sharpness on the edges is never sharp at 1.2, even 2.8 it's not tack sharp.
RAW -> LR no edit appart from exposure value at 1.2 because it's a bit to bright.
Your verdict ? Is it a decentered / defective lens copy? ...Show more →
Looks fine to me for unsharpened 1:1 crops. I don't see a problem. With this high of magnification I do not expect an image to be sharper than what you have posted. Perhaps if you can get another copy of the lens and retry from a tripod so that you can compare the results from each lens you will learn more, but personally I would be happy with that performance and just use the lens without concern.
I suspect the differences seen in the portraits above are related to the difference in the focusing algorithms rather than the lens optics. It would be interesting if you could borrow some other Nikon camera bodies to see if results are any better.
, but it's not just one random shot, it's an entire session of shooting.