Is this only in earlier versions of the lens, or is this all of them?
I ask this question because it appears the 85mm f/1.2 Nikon just released is suffering from the same non-asymetric resolution curve. I experienced this on the 35mm f/1.4G, and 85mm f/1.4G and don't want to go back to those types of lenses again.
Looks like our friend rene descartes may have opened another account.
There is no such thing as a non-asymetric resolution curve. If there was, every lens would have one. These lenses are not for you.
Mar 29, 2023 at 12:25 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Is this only in earlier versions of the lens, or is this all of them?
I ask this question because it appears the 85mm f/1.2 Nikon just released is suffering from the same non-asymetric resolution curve. I experienced this on the 35mm f/1.4G, and 85mm f/1.4G and don't want to go back to those types of lenses again.
Um, at lens tip the concern is that the Nikon lens has a symmetrical not a non-symmetrical resolution curve. What they mean by that is the Nikon lens is not as sharp, even though they call it decently sharp, at wider apertures compared to the Sony GM. It is the Sony lens that has a non-symmetrical resolution curve meaning it has close to optimal sharpness wide open. Personally, I am not worried about the Nikon's resolution pattern as the lens is decently sharp in the center wide open and decently sharp across the frame by f/1.4. I slightly prefer this resolution pattern to the uber sharp from wide open 50 GM pattern, but there is lots of room for different preferences in such patterns.
Oh, and I have seen nothing that has tested resolution yet for the 85 f/1.2S, but it would not surprise me if it has a similar resolution pattern and it would not bother me if it did. You are free to like what you like, but lens tip does not describe the Nikon 50 f/1.2S as soft wide open. Specifically they say, "The performance in the frame centre is really beyond reproach. Already at the maximum relative aperture you deal with values close to 47 lpmm so well above the decency level." So, keep in mind not everyone is going to see that as soft. I don't and lens tip doesn't either.
Oh, and if you want to use a 50mm lens for close focus, then the 50 f/1.2S really isn't a very good choice. It will perform fine if you stop down to f/2.8 or better yet f/4.0, but at wide apertures it really is pretty soft at minimum focus distance. Fortunately Nikon has the 50 f/2.8 Macro in Z mount which is a very good choice for a 50mm lens that handles close focus well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Um, at lens tip the concern is that the Nikon lens has a symmetrical not a non-symmetrical resolution curve. What they mean by that is the Nikon lens is not as sharp, even though they call it decently sharp, at wider apertures compared to the Sony GM. It is the Sony lens that has a non-symmetrical resolution curve meaning it has close to optimal sharpness wide open. Personally, I am not worried about the Nikon's resolution pattern as the lens is decently sharp in the center wide open and decently sharp across the frame by f/1.4. I slightly prefer this resolution pattern to the uber sharp from wide open 50 GM pattern, but there is lots of room for different preferences in such patterns.
Oh, and I have seen nothing that has tested resolution yet for the 85 f/1.2S, but it would not surprise me if it has a similar resolution pattern and it would not bother me if it did. You are free to like what you like, but lens tip does not describe the Nikon 50 f/1.2S as soft wide open. Specifically they say, "The performance in the frame centre is really beyond reproach. Already at the maximum relative aperture you deal with values close to 47 lpmm so well above the decency level." So, keep in mind not everyone is going to see that as soft. I don't and lens tip doesn't either.
Oh, and if you want to use a 50mm lens for close focus, then the 50 f/1.2S really isn't a very good choice. It will perform fine if you stop down to f/2.8 or better yet f/4.0, but at wide apertures it really is pretty soft at minimum focus distance. Fortunately Nikon has the 50 f/2.8 Macro in Z mount which is a very good choice for a 50mm lens that handles close focus well....Show more →
I'm not really concerned about Lenstip's resolution test which could be a sample variation. I'm reviewing Gordon Laing's results over at Camera Labs, and looking at those sample photos I posted above (from his website) wide open that 50mm f/1.2 is extremely, extremely soft. What I saw online indicates to me the Nikkor 85mm f/1.2 is exactly the same.
I wouldn't call that decently sharp wide open. From what I was reading the 50mm f/1.2 isn't decently sharp until f/2.0 whereas the 50mm f/1.8 Z is sharp wide open. Every other lens I own is sharp wide open. One of the reasons I swear by the 28mm 1.4E is that's incredibly sharp wide open in the center, and has incredible bokeh and rendering.
Why is it that the Nikon is so much worse than the Sony 50mm GM 1.2? Is the Canon as bad as this?
Looks to me like considering the Z system was just a mistake. The Nikon glass is just subpar in the Z system.
SKEx wrote:
I'm not really concerned about Lenstip's resolution test which could be a sample variation. I'm reviewing Gordon Laing's results over at Camera Labs, and looking at those sample photos I posted above (from his website) wide open that 50mm f/1.2 is extremely, extremely soft. What I saw online indicates to me the Nikkor 85mm f/1.2 is exactly the same.
I wouldn't call that decently sharp wide open. From what I was reading the 50mm f/1.2 isn't decently sharp until f/2.0 whereas the 50mm f/1.8 Z is sharp wide open. Every other lens I own is sharp wide open. One of the reasons I swear by the 28mm 1.4E is that's incredibly sharp wide open in the center, and has incredible bokeh and rendering.
Why is it that the Nikon is so much worse than the Sony 50mm GM 1.2? Is the Canon as bad as this?
Looks to me like considering the Z system was just a mistake. The Nikon glass is just subpar in the Z system....Show more →
I am not going to answer your leading questions. The photos you posted above are at MFD (minimum focus distance). They do not represent the general performance of the lens, only the performance at that particular distance. The lens does not perform well at MFD until f/2.8. That is not unusual for a uber fast lens. If you want close up performance you should choose either the Nikon 50 f/2.8 Macro for Z mount or if you want a faster aperture then the Voigtlander 65 f/2 APO for Z mount. Both are solid close focus options. If you want a portrait lens, however, the Nikon 50 f/1.2 S is an excellent option and from portrait distance it is sharp in much of the centre of the frame from f/1.2 and sharp across the frame from f/1.4. That is my judgment anyway. It is early days for the 85 f/1.2S, but it looks like a fantastic portrait lens too. Both lenses can also be used effectively at longer distances.
SKEx wrote:
I'm not really concerned about Lenstip's resolution test which could be a sample variation. I'm reviewing Gordon Laing's results over at Camera Labs, and looking at those sample photos I posted above (from his website) wide open that 50mm f/1.2 is extremely, extremely soft. What I saw online indicates to me the Nikkor 85mm f/1.2 is exactly the same.
I wouldn't call that decently sharp wide open. From what I was reading the 50mm f/1.2 isn't decently sharp until f/2.0 whereas the 50mm f/1.8 Z is sharp wide open. Every other lens I own is sharp wide open. One of the reasons I swear by the 28mm 1.4E is that's incredibly sharp wide open in the center, and has incredible bokeh and rendering.
Why is it that the Nikon is so much worse than the Sony 50mm GM 1.2? Is the Canon as bad as this?
Looks to me like considering the Z system was just a mistake. The Nikon glass is just subpar in the Z system....Show more →
😂
Somebody really needs to clue me in as to why people pay so much attention to shooting dollar bills and Chairman Mao dollars? I don't look at any of these things. I shoot people, I pay attention to how stuff renders people...and occasionally birds, that's it. SKEx wrote:
I'm not really concerned about Lenstip's resolution test which could be a sample variation. I'm reviewing Gordon Laing's results over at Camera Labs, and looking at those sample photos I posted above (from his website) wide open that 50mm f/1.2 is extremely, extremely soft. What I saw online indicates to me the Nikkor 85mm f/1.2 is exactly the same.
I wouldn't call that decently sharp wide open. From what I was reading the 50mm f/1.2 isn't decently sharp until f/2.0 whereas the 50mm f/1.8 Z is sharp wide open. Every other lens I own is sharp wide open. One of the reasons I swear by the 28mm 1.4E is that's incredibly sharp wide open in the center, and has incredible bokeh and rendering.
Why is it that the Nikon is so much worse than the Sony 50mm GM 1.2? Is the Canon as bad as this?
Looks to me like considering the Z system was just a mistake. The Nikon glass is just subpar in the Z system....Show more →
JadedWriter wrote:
Somebody really needs to clue me in as to why people pay so much attention to shooting dollar bills and Chairman Mao dollars? I don't look at any of these things. I shoot people, I pay attention to how stuff renders people...and occasionally birds, that's it.
He doesn't care either. He's looking for validation about his brand choices and fuel for an obvious confirmation bias.
I mean you don't see me posting garbage in the Canon and Sony forums trying to justify anything...not even Fuji actually. I discuss things usually regarding Fuji stuff, but I think it's hard to find a post from me where I actually trash things. CanadaMark wrote:
He doesn't care either. He's looking for validation about his brand choices and fuel for an obvious confirmation bias.
The 50mm f1.2 S is most used lens by far on the Z9, I shoot it wide open 90% of the time...
My references for sharpness are GFX-100s best lenses, Phaseone Schneider Blue Ring best lenses, Rodenstock HR tech camera best lenses,... and the Nikon 50mm f1.2 S is up there with the best stopped down and still very very good wide open.
And... the 85mm f1.2 S is even sharper wide open... which is the problem for some obvously.
I clearly see the start of another online denial campaign against Nikon and it written all over it professionnal Troll farm.
Is this only in earlier versions of the lens, or is this all of them?
I ask this question because it appears the 85mm f/1.2 Nikon just released is suffering from the same non-asymetric resolution curve. I experienced this on the 35mm f/1.4G, and 85mm f/1.4G and don't want to go back to those types of lenses again.
I'm also seeing these reports and reviews, and I found Camaralabs to be a reliable source of information. However, in this case, the reports just do not fit to my own experience. My 50mm f/1.2 S is sharp at close distance at f/1.2, i.e. at about as sharp as the Camaralabs example at f/4 in the center and as the Cameralabs image at f/2 11mm away from center, as far as I can see.
For the image below, I have set manual focus to minimum distance and used a Novoflex Castel-Q to adjust the distance. The 10 euro bill is not completely inside the focal plane, as you can see. Focus/distance was set to the center of the image.
Nikon 50mm f/1.2 S at minimum distance. Cropped image from center, shown at 100 %.
NIKON Z 7NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S lens50mmf/1.21/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
Nikon 50mm f/1.2 S at minimum distance. Cropped image from 11mm away from center, shown at 100 %.
NIKON Z 7NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S lens50mmf/1.21/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
Nikon 50mm f/1.2 S at minimum distance. Cropped image from 16mm away from center, shown at 100 %.
NIKON Z 7NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S lens50mmf/1.21/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
Btw, the possibility that shady characters may feed on reviews that either used a bad copy or got something else wrong is a secondary problem. The main problem is that these reviews are out there, and we don't hear from the reviewers as to how they arrived at the results they have published.
My main worry is that this was the DPR forum problem, I hope it is not transferring here.
People, trolls and self proclaimed expert focusing on gear for discussion sake and using whatever review they can find to create and substantiate arguments.
Fpessolano wrote:
My main worry is that this was the DPR forum problem, I hope it is not transferring here.
People, trolls and self proclaimed expert focusing on gear for discussion sake and using whatever review they can find to create and substantiate arguments.
When there is enough real world chatter (either reviews that show inferior results or actual weak points in the product, say Z6/Z7 autofocus speed), then that kind of problem can show up here as well. Otherwise, it's limited to some attempts here and there that often fizzle out quickly.
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm also seeing these reports and reviews, and I found Camaralabs to be a reliable source of information. However, in this case, the reports just do not fit to my own experience. My 50mm f/1.2 S is sharp at close distance at f/1.2, i.e. at about as sharp as the Camaralabs example at f/4 in the center and as the Cameralabs image at f/2 11mm away from center, as far as I can see.
For the image below, I have set manual focus to minimum distance and used a Novoflex Castel-Q to adjust the distance. The 10 euro bill is not completely inside the focal plane, as you can see. Focus/distance was set to the center of the image....Show more →
Either misfocused or a bad copy of the lens in Cameralabs’ test? It only takes for the focus point to be slightly off to miss critical focus at f1.2 and at minimum focus distance.
Even in your example, the image seems to be slightly off the perpendicular plane causing the bottom right area to be out of focus.
GSaleh wrote:
Either misfocused or a bad copy of the lens in Cameralabs’ test? It only takes for the focus point to be slightly off to miss critical focus at f1.2 and at minimum focus distance.
Even in your example, the image seems to be slightly off the perpendicular plane causing the bottom right area to be out of focus.
The 10 euro bill was not in a plane, let alone the focal plane.
SKEx wrote:
I'm not really concerned about Lenstip's resolution test which could be a sample variation. I'm reviewing Gordon Laing's results over at Camera Labs, and looking at those sample photos I posted above (from his website) wide open that 50mm f/1.2 is extremely, extremely soft. What I saw online indicates to me the Nikkor 85mm f/1.2 is exactly the same.
I wouldn't call that decently sharp wide open. From what I was reading the 50mm f/1.2 isn't decently sharp until f/2.0 whereas the 50mm f/1.8 Z is sharp wide open. Every other lens I own is sharp wide open. One of the reasons I swear by the 28mm 1.4E is that's incredibly sharp wide open in the center, and has incredible bokeh and rendering.
Why is it that the Nikon is so much worse than the Sony 50mm GM 1.2? Is the Canon as bad as this?
Looks to me like considering the Z system was just a mistake. The Nikon glass is just subpar in the Z system....Show more →
Thomas performs the Nikon reviews, not Gordon. The example you posted are minimum focus samples. Do you want a lens that is optimized for that type of scenario? Get a macro lens. 50 1.2S obviously wasn’t designed to be the sharpest lens near MFD. You say its not a sharp lens until 2.0 but your own link contradicts that statement: “At f1.8 the Nikon Z 50mm f1.2 S is of comparable sharpness to the Z 50mm f1.8 S…. The long-distance test confirms that the Nikon Z 50mm f1.2 S produces images that are sharp across the sensor even at f1.2.” The lens shows less sharpness only near minimum focus. Again if that’s an issue, get a macro lens.
I am an ousider in this as I don't have, and likely never will have, one of these lenses. But I do have an 85mm fast lens in another system.
The use case of my 85mm is primarily as a portrait lens. I choose this FL because of the way in compresses human features in an attractive way, with no other distortion. This means that I am shooting this most often in a distance range that absolutely doesn't include MFD. I would prefer a lens in this FL to be optimzed for that distance range, not MFD. So the MFD Bank Note tests mean nothing to me.
As a portrait lens I am most often not shooting in low light enviornmants. I am likely shooting in enviornments where I can control the light. I am either using some sort of lights with modifiers, or depending on good natural light, and some sort of reflective modifiers. What this implies is that when I choose to shoot it at extremely wide aperatures, I am doing it for artistic reasons not light gathering reasons. Primarily, I am looking for a very shallow depth of field, and beautifull out of focus transitions and rendering. In such situations I could really give a sh*t about sharpness accross the entire frame. I want a sharp point of focus of my choosing, usually an eye, and a soft dreamy rendering as I move away from the point. I am creating a mood.
If I want sharp across the frame, I usually also want a decent size depth of field. That means that I will have stopped down the lens. I have seen no reviews that say that this lens is anything but extraordinary in such situations.
I see nothing in the reviews that indicate that this 85mm f/1.2 Nikon wouldn't meet all of these performance requirement at an extremely high level. Any difference between it and the best similar offering from a competative brand will have less impact on a resulting image than that of the photographer making the image. Honestly, when do we ever use high end portraits straight out of camera? Editing will also have more impact than the levels of performance being discussed here.
This lens is a great addition to the Nikon Z mount ecosystem. If you shoot the kind of images this lens was designed to produce you will not find a better option among the competative brands. In this type of photography, more important than the niggles of sharpness being discussed in this thread, is the consistancy of color and rendering within the Nikon lens line itself. Nikon is maybe the industry leader in this area. It is something they pay attention to, and Nikon photographers benefit from. Focus on stuff like that which really matter to your outcomes.
Reading the tone, tenor, and purposeful brand baiting of the OP's posts in this thread I don't think his reasons for posting, and my interests in learning about this lens, are in alignment. He adds nothing for me. I do however feel I benefit from the comments of others in this thread.
