1bwana1 wrote:
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 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....Show more →
I must say that you eloquently stated with precision how I feel about the 85z/1.2, this thread, and the OP’s intent. I have a feeling that a good number of those coming across this thread will feel the same.
It baffles me where this "BuT NiKON 50/1.2 IS nOT SHarP!" conspiracy theory came from. IDK man i must possess the magical copy of the 50/1.2 because it looks sharp to me.
but here's the weird thing about the 50/1.2S...it's longer than 50mm which makes it really hard to compare with its contemporaries, which includes Nikon's own 50/1.8.
I have a flickr album of 50/1.2S and 50/1.8 shot at f1.8 or wider and just for good measure...i also added the Sony 50/1.2 GM adapted with Megadap.
All tested on Z9 on tripod with no post processing whatsoever...set to the MFD of the 50/1.2S which is around 0.45m or something (i used the OLED display of the lens and check if the camera can focus). Not super scientific, but enough to debunk anyone claiming Nikon 50/1.2S is not sharp.
I will try to do the same with the NEW 85/1.2 and 85/1.8 and the Canon EF 1.2...it's just that it's tedious to set up and I've got better things to do than feeding the trolls. I will say though that the new 85/1.2 is so sharp it's beyond comprehension how Nikon achieved it...
EDIT: I also want to say that I would pick the Nikon 50/1.2 over Sony 50/1.2 any day of the week. i do not know what kind of coke bottle CameraLabs was testing here but that's not what I see with my own tests with my copy...that "review" feels like a hit piece.
Guys, whoever this person is registered yesterday and made two posts. This smells of the trolling activity of the dpr forum ... let's just hide him or if there is a moderator, please remove him and this thread.
Fpessolano wrote:
Guys, whoever this person is registered yesterday and made two posts. This smells of the trolling activity of the dpr forum ... let's just hide him or if there is a moderator, please remove him and this thread.
Yes, he also posts under the name of rene descartes. He seems unhealthily exercised by the Z 85mm. He has now uncovered this sloppy review of the z 50mm, beside himself anticipating similar ineptitude in an 85mm review. Hard to tell whether he is a tragic, working for the competition or a Russian bot.
We read quite often here about suspicious previews/reviews done by Nikon ambassadors, or any other brand associates.
I know in advance what kind of factor to be applied to their story, understanding their position.
My problem is with those "non ambassador professional reviewers".
I never know if they're really independent and honest, or there are some ties to a brand or more, which would create either positive or negative bias, it depends what product they review.
The other problem I have with those, they cover so much of equipment, from all different brands...so do they learn always how to use it properly...and do they have enough time to pay attention to the details during testing process.
We should assume, it was a bad lens copy, but was it really, or something else happened here, we will never find out...
I think you guys are wasting you time stating the obvious with well reasoned posts based on facts and experience - the OP is not interested in anything like that He cherry picked some data, misinterpreted it, and used it to take a shot at Nikon and Canon to feel better about his brand choices. He has no interest in anything else.
As others have alluded to, it's also probably a second account of an existing troll as they use all the same talking points.
CanadaMark wrote:
I think you guys are wasting you time stating the obvious with well reasoned posts based on facts and experience - the OP is not interested in anything like that He cherry picked some data, misinterpreted it, and used it to take a shot at Nikon and Canon to feel better about his brand choices. He has no interest in anything else.
As others have alluded to, it's also probably a second account of an existing troll as they use all the same talking points.
We are not having this disussion to try and convince the OP of anything. He is not worth our time. We are having this discussion for our own education and benefit, and to dispell the false information for future readers in the FM community.
1bwana1 wrote:
We are not having this disussion to try and convince the OP of anything. He is not worth our time. We are having this discussion for our own education and benefit, and to dispell the false information for future readers in the FM community.
Steve maybe you know the OP, you’re both from La Jolla 😁
CanadaMark wrote:
I think you guys are wasting you time stating the obvious with well reasoned posts based on facts and experience - the OP is not interested in anything like that He cherry picked some data, misinterpreted it, and used it to take a shot at Nikon and Canon to feel better about his brand choices. He has no interest in anything else.
As others have alluded to, it's also probably a second account of an existing troll as they use all the same talking points.
to me it's not really so much as responding to OP's allegations... i've read a number of alleged "anecdotes" across several corners of the intarwebs about the 50/1.2S not being sharp ...as if they're talking about the 58/1.4G or something.. i think the review from CameraLabs certainly exacerbates this nonsense...which is a shame, honestly.
The troll succeeded - 30 posts in response to nonsense. The troll is not interested in engaging - he'll just create more nonsense threads later and the cycle will repeat. Get banned, create a new username & so on.
lukemeup wrote:
The troll succeeded - 30 posts in response to nonsense. The troll is not interested in engaging - he'll just create more nonsense threads later and the cycle will repeat. Get banned, create a new username & so on.
but what if his real objective was to get us all band together for a common cause and make friends along the way?
He cherry picked some data, misinterpreted it, and used it to take a shot at Nikon and Canon to feel better about his brand choices. He has no interest in anything else.