p.12 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
nhmorgan wrote:
Lightroom. The profile is in there.
Do you find the purple fringing still noticeable after applying the profile?
I've noted on the 35mm 1.2 photo thread that I think in some photos is very noticeable, but can't figure out exactly because there are conflicting reports of people saying its very well controlled.
Whats your take on it? Does it show up often, is it hard to correct? Some lenses are easier than others, if its really pronounced when fixing it could create that halo effect which is not very pretty.
p.12 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
It was showing up for me in things like black straps on a white shirt. That's not an extreme case like tree branches on a white sky. I was also a little disappointed with the coma and astigmatism on stars, it's ok, but not nearly as good as the Sigma 40mm ART. Surprisingly, there I didn't see the fringing show up quite as much as it did for Christopher Frost's review, but admittedly I didn't get to test it on stars for long or with longer exposures under darker skies.
Overall, I don't think this is a bad lens at all. I've really just used it for one weekend. The background out of focus areas are very smooth. I just haven't seen anything yet that made me say "wow." I saw that right away with the 85mm 1.2. the 35mm is a very good lens, but I'm questioning whether the price tag is justified. I think around 2k this would be a no brainer. I'm not sure yet. I've got events coming up every weekend for the next 5 weeks so I will get to really put it through its paces.
p.12 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Yeah, I think that's the key thing really, and why I've been holding it for now. I'm pretty sure I'll buy it anyway at some point, but wondering if more than 3000EUR (in Europe) is justified.
p.12 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
External link (you may have to copy and paste outside of FM) which provides the Japanese product description (easily translated into English, etc.) in greater detail and with more specific information about the product....
There are also links to all other Z-Series lenses available through this set of pages which I've found very enlightening (if not particularly "lightening" of my lens set).
p.12 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
nhmorgan wrote:
I just haven't seen anything yet that made me say "wow." I saw that right away with the 85mm 1.2.
This is exactly where I'm at as a couch quarterback watching the initial images roll in. So far definitely appears to be the weakest link in the 1.2 lineup.
p.12 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
... So far definitely appears to be the weakest link in the 1.2 lineup.
This may be the case but this is just an outstanding lens for me so far. I think people are splitting hairs here and on the phots thread for this lens on picking this one apart, noting its 'flaws'. Pretty sure that on the whole this is one of the best 35mm lenses ever made at this point. And yet its the 'weakest' of the Z-Nikkor 1.2's. I think that says more about how good the others are than how bad this one is. Most of the noted issues with this lens are in situations where almost any lens will have problems. I would hazard a guess that any lenses from other manufacturers that are corrected for the flaws noted with this lens, will have shortcomings elsewhere.
While I see what people are talking about in some of the 'flaws', I also think some of this is inherent in wide angle lens design. In my experience it seems like telephotos always perform better than wide angles, just in the nature of the way they are designed and how they work. Easier to correct maybe?
While the 35mm f/1.2S may be weaker than the other Nikkor 1.2's (I reserve judgment on this one for the moment), it is still a top shelf lens. In all practical use cases for me so far it has been flawless.
p.12 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
I've been thinking of selling off my 24-70mm 2.8 to get the 35mm 1.2 but B&H isn't sure when they are getting a new shipment in. I used a 35mm f/2D for a really long time before I switched over to the Z system. When I got the 35mm 1.8, I actually missed my 2D so I sold off the 1.8 to get a 24-70 but I don't find myself reaching for the lens much so hoping the 1.2 will be the one I've been waiting for.
p.12 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
natertot wrote:
I've been thinking of selling off my 24-70mm 2.8 to get the 35mm 1.2 but B&H isn't sure when they are getting a new shipment in. I used a 35mm f/2D for a really long time before I switched over to the Z system. When I got the 35mm 1.8, I actually missed my 2D so I sold off the 1.8 to get a 24-70 but I don't find myself reaching for the lens much so hoping the 1.2 will be the one I've been waiting for.
I've got one for sale about a month old. It was my backup 35mm 1.2
p.12 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
aisnikkor wrote:
This may be the case but this is just an outstanding lens for me so far. I think people are splitting hairs here and on the phots thread for this lens on picking this one apart, noting its 'flaws'. Pretty sure that on the whole this is one of the best 35mm lenses ever made at this point. And yet its the 'weakest' of the Z-Nikkor 1.2's. I think that says more about how good the others are than how bad this one is. Most of the noted issues with this lens are in situations where almost any lens will have problems. I would hazard a guess that any lenses from other manufacturers that are corrected for the flaws noted with this lens, will have shortcomings elsewhere.
While I see what people are talking about in some of the 'flaws', I also think some of this is inherent in wide angle lens design. In my experience it seems like telephotos always perform better than wide angles, just in the nature of the way they are designed and how they work. Easier to correct maybe?
While the 35mm f/1.2S may be weaker than the other Nikkor 1.2's (I reserve judgment on this one for the moment), it is still a top shelf lens. In all practical use cases for me so far it has been flawless.
p.12 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
There is obvious green fringing along the branch that is partially overlaps the sun in the photo. The fringing performance is decent here, but not nearly as outstanding as you make it out to be.
My problem with the Nikon 1.2 lenses (which are great performers) is that they are insanely large and heavy. I therefore have been using some of the more recently released Sony GM lenses on my Z9 which perform as well (if not better) than their Nikon Z counterparts and are up to 1/2 to almost 1 lb lighter per lens. Sony 70-200 GM II, 50 1.2 GM, for example. Also, my Sony 35 1.4, 85 1.4 GM ii give up a little speed to the Nikon 1.2 versions, but perform as well and are much smaller and lighter and less expensive. All of these lenses have AF that is extremely fast and completely silent. The Nikon Z lenses have quick AF (not as fast as the Sony GM) and have a slight hum when racking through the focus range.
My only two Nikon Z lenses are the Plena and the 105 f2.8 S Macro. Got them because their size and weight was more reasonable for what they offer and because they appeared to be somewhat better than their Sony counterparts.
p.12 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dtcls100 wrote:
There is obvious green fringing along the branch that is partially overlaps the sun in the photo. The fringing performance is decent here, but not nearly as outstanding as you make it out to be.
My problem with the Nikon 1.2 lenses (which are great performers) is that they are insanely large and heavy. I therefore have been using some of the more recently released Sony GM lenses on my Z9 which perform as well (if not better) than their Nikon Z counterparts and are up to 1/2 to almost 1 lb lighter per lens. Sony 70-200 GM II, 50 1.2 GM, for example. Also, my Sony 35 1.4, 85 1.4 GM ii give up a little speed to the Nikon 1.2 versions, but perform as well and are much smaller and lighter and less expensive. All of these lenses have AF that is extremely fast and completely silent. The Nikon Z lenses have quick AF (not as fast as the Sony GM) and have a slight hum when racking through the focus range.
My only two Nikon Z lenses are the Plena and the 105 f2.8 S Macro. Got them because their size and weight was more reasonable for what they offer and because they appeared to be somewhat better than their Sony counterparts. ...Show more →
Given that there are no Sony 35 or 85 1.2 lenses, you have to decide if 1.4 will satisfy all of your shooting.
For me, the only one I'm interested in is the 85 because it comes the closest to the medium format bokeh look. For a 35, the GM would make way more sense, and the Sony 50/1.2 is considerably smaller/lighter to the Nikon and gives up nothing from an IQ perspective.
p.12 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
The main difference is probably vignetting and actual equivalent aperture in the outer areas of the image (i.e. less blur or harsher bokeh in the edges and corners), not f/1.2 vs. f/1.4.
RoamingScott wrote:
Given that there are no Sony 35 or 85 1.2 lenses, you have to decide if 1.4 will satisfy all of your shooting.
For me, the only one I'm interested in is the 85 because it comes the closest to the medium format bokeh look. For a 35, the GM would make way more sense, and the Sony 50/1.2 is considerably smaller/lighter to the Nikon and gives up nothing from an IQ perspective.
p.12 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
The larger size is a consequence of the design decisions:
- low distortion
- low focus breathing
- low vignetting
Reducing vignetting means that light rays that travel through remote areas of the lens and hit elements at lower angles are not blocked, but contribute to the image.
These ray bundles often have more aberrations than rays that are closer to the optical axis of the lens.
Thus, a larger lens may actually produce more aberrations, due to physics.
RustyRus wrote:
Is that acceptable levels of fringing in a backlight situation? Sure-
Its not groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination. Especially for its size,
The 35mm f1.2 S is quickly becoming one of my favorite lenses of all times.
Cheers,
Bernard
do people actually expect to have absolutely zero fringing in this incredibly difficult lighting situation? there is small hint of green fringing but in my eyes those are practically absent. i have the Leica 35 APO SL and even that lens i'm pretty sure will not be zero fringing in this situation wide open (and that lens is exceptional and eye watering expensive new). if you look at @bernardl's other photos with the 35 in his flickr photostream you can see the shots at f/1.2 (no LoCA) where other relatively cheaper lenses will not fare well even stopped down. it's pretty amazing performance, if you ask me.
p.12 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dalegaspi wrote:
do people actually expect to have absolutely zero fringing in this incredibly difficult lighting situation? there is small hint of green fringing but in my eyes those are practically absent. i have the Leica 35 APO SL and even that lens i'm pretty sure will not be zero fringing in this situation wide open (and that lens is exceptional and eye watering expensive new). if you look at @bernardl@'s other photos with the 35 in his flickr photostream you can see the shots at f/1.2 (no LoCA) where other relatively cheaper lenses will not fare well even stopped down. it's pretty amazing performance, if you ask me. ...Show more →
…. I used a lot of 35mm over the years. Like some others here, I would rate the fringing performance average among expensive 35mm lens. It performs similarly to a lot of other good 35mm like the Sony 35mm Gm, sigma 35mm f1.2. The sigma 40mm f1.4 is the lens I have used that have amazing fringing performance.
I feel the bokeh quality is what the Nikon excel in. And maybe flare? Since Nikon boasts so many coatings.
I rem my Nikon 35mm f1.4 g lens had horrible fringing, maybe that is why some feel the new 35mm is a huge improvement.
about a month old. It was my backup 35mm 1.2
i had to check the date of this post. do you really not see the fringing in this pic, as I mentioned last time you made this claim?