You guys are killing it with this lens. Amazing shots. I have never seen quite that kind of subject separation and transition to background from a lens, it really is rather special. I wish I shot people more and could justify buying it!
I feel like I have already shot this lens way more than the 1.8S. Edit: Just checked Flickr I have more for the 1.8S, but none of that counts work and I only shot the 1.8 a handful of times for work, but I had the 1.8 for like a year longer. Alistair1 wrote:
You guys are killing it with this lens. Amazing shots. I have never seen quite that kind of subject separation and transition to background from a lens, it really is rather special. I wish I shot people more and could justify buying it!
JadedWriter wrote:
I feel like I have already shot this lens way more than the 1.8S. Edit: Just checked Flickr I have more for the 1.8S, but none of that counts work and I only shot the 1.8 a handful of times for work, but I had the 1.8 for like a year longer.
Yes, the 1.8 is a very fine lens in its own right. Incredibly sharp and well corrected. But this 1.2 goes way beyond that. It has clearly been crafted to produce a very distinct look. It clearly shows in your post above. Especially the first three. The way the subjects stand out while the background melts away. And the way the skin is rendered. Extraordinary.
Alistair1 wrote:
Yes, the 1.8 is a very fine lens in its own right. Incredibly sharp and well corrected. But this 1.2 goes way beyond that. It has clearly been crafted to produce a very distinct look. It clearly shows in your post above. Especially the first three. The way the subjects stand out while the background melts away. And the way the skin is rendered. Extraordinary.
I agree. I will be picking up mine on Monday. The question now is if I keep the 50 and 85 1.8.
Yeah the rendering is very pleasing and the subject really pops. It reminds me of the 135GM, but without being as overly sharp by comparison. There's a smooth pleasing quality to it. Alistair1 wrote:
Yes, the 1.8 is a very fine lens in its own right. Incredibly sharp and well corrected. But this 1.2 goes way beyond that. It has clearly been crafted to produce a very distinct look. It clearly shows in your post above. Especially the first three. The way the subjects stand out while the background melts away. And the way the skin is rendered. Extraordinary.
This lens is going to get a workout during graduation season. urbanwild wrote:
These are all really fantastic and, I agree, they show what this lens can really do!
So far I am not as happy with the 85/1.2s as much as the 50/1.2s.
The 50/1.2 s is lighter half the weight of the 85/1.2 s and is remarkably more contrasty.'My sessions are over three hours of handheld and there is a muscle price to pay..
To clarify . I had the 50 on the Z7 and the 85 on the Z9.
It's the Z7 body half the weight not the lens.
The 50 has the special ARNEO Coat sauce which is missing in the 85.
I am giving it one more chance waiting for Capture One to release a support update before selling my lens.
Almass wrote:
So far I am not as happy with the 85/1.2s as much as the 50/1.2s.
The 50/1.2 s is lighter half the weight of the 85/1.2 s and is remarkably more contrasty.'My sessions are over three hours of handheld and there is a muscle price to pay.
The 50 has the special ARNEO Coat sauce which is missing in the 85.
I am giving it one more chance waiting for Capture One to release a support update before selling my lens.
On the plus side, the Bokeh is creamylicious
what are you talking about, bro? the two lenses are about the same weight. i have both and on my weighing scale the 85/1.2 is about 5 oz heavier.
i also don't understand about the "remarkably less contrasty" comment. lack of contrast is not something i would describe any of the Z lenses, even relative to one another.
Almass wrote:
So far I am not as happy with the 85/1.2s as much as the 50/1.2s.
The 50/1.2 s is lighter half the weight of the 85/1.2 s and is remarkably more contrasty.'My sessions are over three hours of handheld and there is a muscle price to pay.
The 50 has the special ARNEO Coat sauce which is missing in the 85.
I am giving it one more chance waiting for Capture One to release a support update before selling my lens.
Almass wrote:
So far I am not as happy with the 85/1.2s as much as the 50/1.2s.
The 50/1.2 s is lighter half the weight of the 85/1.2 s and is remarkably more contrasty.'My sessions are over three hours of handheld and there is a muscle price to pay.
The 50 has the special ARNEO Coat sauce which is missing in the 85.
I am giving it one more chance waiting for Capture One to release a support update before selling my lens.
On the plus side, the Bokeh is creamylicious.
Hmm. The weights are listed as similar:
50 f1.2 - 1090gms
85 f1.2 = 1160gms
I am unsure of your implication that Capture One needs an update for lens support as I am sure the lens corrections are embedded in the RAW files and are thus available straight away. When ever I have received a brand new Nikon lens that has been newly released, before Capture One has been able to supposedly issue support, the lens correction profiles are already available. So, it would seem to me that those corrections are embedded in the RAW file. It appears under "Lens Corrections" and under the drop down box as "manufacturers profile".
I had the 50 on the Z7 and the 85 on the Z9.
It's the Z7 body half the weight not the lens.
Post corrected.
Please also check Capture One and the lens profile as I have suggested as I am sure the lens correction should be there as it is loaded from the RAW file.
My apologies to those who want images and not YTer promotions (second time doing so tonight), but I have to say this is the best video I've seen from this guy in terms of image quality and it really does a nice job of showing off this lens. Cheesy in some parts, yes, but I'll choose to call it fun. I would imagine his images in this video will sell quite a few copies.
aisnikkor wrote:
Some further comments about my previous post on this thread, regarding the AF on this lens with the Nikon Z9 not being 'perfect'. (Though it's pretty close IMHO). The pics below are part of about a two second shutter activation of about 45 frames (at 20fps). Every photo is in focus in the series, but the focus point moved around, particularly at the end of the sequence as the rider got close (maybe 8 feet away at speed?). The first photo below is the first frame in the sequence, sharp on the rider's face from the start. The second photo and the 100% crops are the 40th frame in the sequence. Photos 1 through 30 in the sequence had perfect focus on the rider's face. 31 through 33 the focus point was behind. 34 and 35 were perfect again. 36 to 39 were behind again. 40 (below) and 41 were perfect again, and the last four were behind, but my panning dropped off and the framing changed as the rider was passing me (less than 6 feet away at 20 mph.) While not perfect, this is insanely good performance at close range, keeping in mind that I am panning pretty quickly as the rider is starting to pass me.
The other thing I was impressed with was being able to jump back and start panning with another rider in the pack, less than a second of not taking pics, and get another sequence, 90%+ in focus. And then again, and again, and again in the large pack in this race (more than 200 started). 90% of the pics are in focus on the rider's faces. An occasional sequence would miss the face entirely, and be focused on the rider's jersey, but I put these down to operator error on not initiating AF in the right spot. I was using 3D AF with subject tracking on people.
One of the YouTube reviewers commented that this lens was not 'sports fast' for AF. I am not sure this is true as it seems quite fast to me. It may not rack through MFD to infinity as fast as one would want, but in practical use this thing is spot on for AF in quick action and fast changes of the focus point. Having a very usable f/1.2 aperture for indoor volleyball or basketball pics has interesting possibilities...
Going back to my comparison of the last time I was shooting this race with the D700 I was previously getting maybe 10 percent keepers at best. Now we are in the 85 to 90% plus range, with better image quality and 2 to 3x the shooting speed. Loving it....Show more →
Want to comment that 85mm isn't long enough for road cycling. Forcing you to frame closer and later..that means AF speed is extremely crucial shooting subjects at speed and at a closer distance. But great for mountain biking or shooting in the woods like trail runs because you have limited space and the subjects move a lot slower. Even with the 85 f1.8s, the keeper rate shooting cyclists at speed isn't as good as a 70-200 f2.8s. Try some running events if you have the chance...
TooManyShots wrote:
Want to comment that 85mm isn't long enough for road cycling. Forcing you to frame closer and later..that means AF speed is extremely crucial shooting subjects at speed and at a closer distance. But great for mountain biking or shooting in the woods like trail runs because you have limited space and the subjects move a lot slower. Even with the 85 f1.8s, the keeper rate shooting cyclists at speed isn't as good as a 70-200 f2.8s. Try some running events if you have the chance...
I have shot a lot of cycling over the years (as well as track and cross country), and you are not wrong on the focal length point, but this was just a bit of an experiment with a new lens. I did shoot with the 70-200mm f/2.8S and with the 400mm f/2.8E at this race also. Each brings a different perspective to the table.
One thing I noticed was that the isolation ability of the 85 f/1.2S and the 400E were similar, though with an obvious big difference in perspective and compression. The zoom was a bit behind in this area. Even though the 85 is not the longest lens, I was still quite happy with a lot of the cycling photos obtained.
Regarding focusing ability, another thing I noticed was that the 70-200mm picked up initial focus better than the 85mmm f/1.2, even when the former was set to ~85mm. When in 3D tracking, the grey focus box on the Z9 appeared to pick up on faces and eyes just a bit quicker on the zoom. It picked up a lot quicker at 200mm and seemed more 'sticky', but I was assuming this was due more to the difference in focal length. I was wondering if the shallower DOF at max aperture caused some differences in these AF tracking and lock-on abilities? Like maybe the algorithms in the camera are not optimized for the extremely shallow DOF of this lens? It still worked well, there were just differences.
A further comment on AF speed with the 85mm f/1.2S. It was definitely slower moving through focus than either of the other two lenses mentioned (zoom and 400E), but it was still quick enough, and I never once saw it rack through the whole focus range looking for focus - it always locked on straight away, keeping in mind that this was in favorable outdoor lighting conditions.
I do not see getting rid of the 85mm f/1.2S anytime soon, it's a definite keeper. Going into the purchase I was not quite so certain, but absolutely no regrets here :-).
For the Z9, do you need to update to the latest firmware 3.10 to use the 85 f1.2? I don't like the 3.10 version because my keeper rate went down a lot shooting with my 70-200 f2.8s. I am still using the 3.01 version.
