p.13 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
so a couple of things here...to put it in better context (and i'm going to sound like Chris N. from PetaPixel here):
- there are 2 main types of color fringing ..lateral and longitudinal..the former is fringing on the same plane which is a non-issue nowadays because it's easily corrected in post. the latter is more serious because it's not easily corrected even in post because removing them ends up with dull gray mush
- that photo from @bernardl is actually LoCA fringing ...behind a bright lights. most any other lenses will be green halo mess in that...the Nikon has barely a hint of green fringing ..and to me that's an amazing feat.
to call it "average" in terms of handling fringing is just wild to me.
p.13 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dalegaspi wrote:
so a couple of things here...to put it in better context (and i'm going to sound like Chris N. from PetaPixel here):
- there are 2 main types of color fringing ..lateral and longitudinal..the former is fringing on the same plane which is a non-issue nowadays because it's easily corrected in post. the latter is more serious because it's not easily corrected even in post because removing them ends up with dull gray mush
- that photo from @bernardl@ is actually LoCA fringing ...behind a bright lights. most any other lenses will be green halo mess in that...the Nikon has barely a hint of green fringing ..and to me that's an amazing feat.
to call it "average" in terms of handling fringing is just wild to me.
It all depends on which Lens you are comparing with. If you are comparing to all the 35mm lens ever built, it is definitely a good performance and the LoCA is really well controlled. I have seen and used a lot of worse LoCA 35mm lens like the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and the nikon 35mm f1.4G.
If you are comparing with the good and modern 35m lens which you should be since that lens is SO EXPENSIVE, its performance really is average. Do you think the 35mm gm show more LoCA than this? Or the sigma 35mm f1.2? I haven't used the canon 35mm f1.4 rf but I don't think it is any worse either. BTW, being "average" here means it is definitely not an issue for most people.
At this price point, you really have to be like really clean to be considered exceptional especially when there are lens like the sigma 40mm f1.4 which is virtually free of any LoCA.
p.13 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dtcls100 wrote:
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.
My only nikon lens currently is the plena... which is like you said better than the sony counterpart...
I feel the nikon35mm f1.2 is better than the sony (sigma) counterpart as it is around the same weight and has smoother bokeh and better flare resistance.
but the price is insanely high right now because it is newly launched. With the rumors of a new sigma 35mm f1.2, I am not sure if I should get this.
p.13 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
wind30 wrote:
It all depends on which Lens you are comparing with. If you are comparing to all the 35mm lens ever built, it is definitely a good performance and the LoCA is really well controlled. I have seen and used a lot of worse LoCA 35mm lens like the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and the nikon 35mm f1.4G.
If you are comparing with the good and modern 35m lens which you should be since that lens is SO EXPENSIVE, its performance really is average. Do you think the 35mm gm show more LoCA than this? Or the sigma 35mm f1.2? I haven't used the canon 35mm f1.4 rf but I don't think it is any worse either. BTW, being "average" here means it is definitely not an issue for most people.
At this price point, you really have to be like really clean to be considered exceptional especially when there are lens like the sigma 40mm f1.4 which is virtually free of any LoCA.
"Do you think the 35mm gm show more LoCA than this? Or the sigma 35mm f1.2? I haven't used the canon 35mm f1.4 rf but I don't think it is any worse either. "
yes, they all will in this particular lighting situation... i can say this because i own the Leica 35mm SL APO, which is supposed to be one of the best in its class...and that, too, will suffer that same LoCA. i mean, to be fair...that particular lighting situation is brutal. i don't think any lens will perform with absolutely no LoCA in that.
"that lens is SO EXPENSIVE, its performance really is average."
i know everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but this is just...wild. yes, it is expensive, but to knock its performance down like that (even relatively) is a bit disingenuous...
"At this price point, you really have to be like really clean to be considered exceptional especially when there are lens like the sigma 40mm f1.4 which is virtually free of any LoCA."
i mean, sure, 40mm may be the greatest...but it's not a 35mm. 🤷♂️ also...i'm not saying it's not a very good lens because it is...but it is not virtually free of any LoCA...several reviews will tell you that.
and i honestly don't get this mythical price point threshold that somehow if it crosses that line it has to be perfect in every way. is there some ISO standard that i didn't know about that defines this?
p.13 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dalegaspi wrote:
"Do you think the 35mm gm show more LoCA than this? Or the sigma 35mm f1.2? I haven't used the canon 35mm f1.4 rf but I don't think it is any worse either. "
yes, they all will in this particular lighting situation... i can say this because i own the Leica 35mm SL APO, which is supposed to be one of the best in its class...and that, too, will suffer that same LoCA. i mean, to be fair...that particular lighting situation is brutal. i don't think any lens will perform with absolutely no LoCA in that.
"that lens is SO EXPENSIVE, its performance really is average."
i know everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but this is just...wild. yes, it is expensive, but to knock its performance down like that (even relatively) is a bit disingenuous...
"At this price point, you really have to be like really clean to be considered exceptional especially when there are lens like the sigma 40mm f1.4 which is virtually free of any LoCA."
i mean, sure, 40mm may be the greatest...but it's not a 35mm. 🤷♂️ also...i'm not saying it's not a very good lens because it is...but it is not virtually free of any LoCA...several reviews will tell you that.
and i honestly don't get this mythical price point threshold that somehow if it crosses that line it has to be perfect in every way. is there some ISO standard that i didn't know about that defines this? ...Show more →
Is the Leica the only other 35mm you have owned? Why do you think the Leica is the better if you have not owned any of the other lens? Was the Leica reviewed on one of the big lens review sites? Philip Reeve and lenstip both reviewed the sigma 40mm and concluded that lens was the best in loCA.
Even the Leica show LoCA, it doesn't say anything about the 35mm gm, or sigma 35mm f1.2 performance. I really don't get your logic. how can you say something about those lens if you have not tried them.
I have owned all the following lens and I know for sure my copy of the sigma 40mm is with very little loCA under torture conditions. It is kind of obvious. My thinking is you haven't seen a lens with GOOD loCA yet... try the sigma 40mm f1.4.
I am not putting down the nikon... In fact I have said the nikon is really very good and is probably the best 35mm f1.2 lens out there is money is no object. Not for the loCA but for its bokeh which I find really good.
p.13 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Is the Leica the only other 35mm you have owned? Why do you think the Leica is the better if you have not owned any of the other lens? Was the Leica reviewed on one of the big lens review sites? Philip Reeve and lenstip both reviewed the sigma 40mm and concluded that lens was the best in loCA.
Even the Leica show LoCA, it doesn't say anything about the 35mm gm, or sigma 35mm f1.2 performance. I really don't get your logic. how can you say something about those lens if you have not tried them.
I have owned all the following lens and I know for sure my copy of the sigma 40mm is with very little loCA under torture conditions. It is kind of obvious. My thinking is you haven't seen a lens with GOOD loCA yet... try the sigma 40mm f1.4.
I am not putting down the nikon... In fact I have said the nikon is really very good and is probably the best 35mm f1.2 lens out there is money is no object. Not for the loCA but for its bokeh which I find really good. ...Show more →
i only take issue with your word earlier that the Nikon is "average" even when compared its contemporaries, but now that you have provided a broader context, i take back what i said that your comment was disingenuous.
the only ones i haven't tried are the sigma 35/1.2 and the 40/1.4. i can't stress enough that i don't think the 40mm should be in this conversation...because it's not a 35mm.
i keep mentioning the Leica only because it's the best one I have owned (and still do) of all the lenses I have tried and owned long term and I can state that with the least bias as possible. true it's still not purely objective or logical from your point of view, but hopefully that provides even a little bit of reasoning.
with all that being said, I think the next version of the Sigma 35/1.2 (apparently in the works) will likely smoke the Nikon.
p.13 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
I’ll post a 200% sample later. The only area where I see significant green halos are along the green stem of the flower, not along any other objects.
It’s unclear to me whether this is LoCA or simply bokeh.
There is no hint of magenta fringing that I can see and I would expect to see both green fringing behind the focus plane and magenta in front if it were LoCA.
p.13 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
I’ll post a 200% sample later. The only area where I see significant green halos are along the green stem of the flower, not along any other objects.
It’s unclear to me whether this is LoCA or simply bokeh.
There is no hint of magenta fringing that I can see and I would expect to see both green fringing behind the focus plane and magenta in front if it were LoCA.
Cheers,
Bernard
The green fringing is definitely LoCA. I hope it is. If the bokeh looks like that, it is even worse.... because it is going to happen all the time...
LoCA is heavily dependent on how bright the highlight is and how dark is the dark region at the edge. That is why some of us call this a torture test because the highlight in this case is VERY bright and not many lens will pass this test.
Rest of the picture the sky is way darker than the sun so you don't see much LoCA there.
p.13 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
It's there. Looks bad compared to something like the Plena. I've seen worse. But like what some people say about the 50mm 1.8 S, that its too corrected and then they'll say 1.4 is too soft and has too much CA. So.. there is no pleasing everyone. The 35mm 1.2 is phenomenal
p.13 #11 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
PixiPhotography wrote:
It's very minor. Like what some say about the 50mm 1.8 S, that its too corrected and the 1.4 is too soft. So.. there is no pleasing everyone. The 35mm 1.2 is phenomenal
This is definitely a difficult scenario with the number of bright out-of-focus edges near the plane of focus, but that's not what I would call "very minor." The green and magenta fringing on either side of the focus plane is very obvious even at the reduced resolution when the photos are scaled to my browser. I have no doubt the 35 1.2 is very sharp, but from what I've seen between coma (this could've been a killer lens for astro) and LoCa performance (visible in many areas of most of the samples I've seen where the lens is shot wide open), it doesn't perform at the same level as the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and Plena. I wanted to love this lens, but there's no way I drop that kind of money on it just to have a green and magenta tint to every photo that's impossible to correct in post.
p.13 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
AcuteShadows wrote:
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.
100% understand the design tradeoffs but I am just saying this lens isabsolutly MASSIVE- For the sheer volume of this lens, I am sure they could have put 7-10 more lens elements in to correct a few more optical issues
Kidding of course but when you have a lens this size, its hard to overlook any optical issues IMO- Again I think it does a fine job with handling fringing but the hyperbole about it is a bit exaggerated that its non existent.
p.13 #13 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
I shot a family outing with the 35mm 1.2, lots of portraits and many facing the sun, and nothing (fringing) stood out. Sure if I pixel peep I’ll see imperfections in any lens. Some call those imperfection “character”. Again there is no pleasing every shooter. Once again I reference the debate on the 50mm 1.8 S being too corrected and then people also complaining the 1.4 has too much fringing.
p.13 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Lenses this size, you really have to want them on the camera for a purpose. They dominate the process, and push the use of other lenses into the background. They really are destined for confined use cases: staged events, concerts, model sessions. Nothing wrong with any of that but best to understand it.
p.13 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
The Zeiss Milvus 35mm lens weighs 100 g more, and does not even go to f/1.2. I have the 25mm f/1.4, and I suspect it has less aberrations than the Nikkor 35mm f/1.2. The 25mm has a 82mm filter thread, while the 35mm has a 72mm thread.
RustyRus wrote:
100% understand the design tradeoffs but I am just saying this lens isabsolutly MASSIVE- For the sheer volume of this lens, I am sure they could have put 7-10 more lens elements in to correct a few more optical issues
Kidding of course but when you have a lens this size, its hard to overlook any optical issues IMO- Again I think it does a fine job with handling fringing but the hyperbole about it is a bit exaggerated that its non existent.
p.13 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Wezre wrote:
This is definitely a difficult scenario with the number of bright out-of-focus edges near the plane of focus, but that's not what I would call "very minor." The green and magenta fringing on either side of the focus plane is very obvious even at the reduced resolution when the photos are scaled to my browser. I have no doubt the 35 1.2 is very sharp, but from what I've seen between coma (this could've been a killer lens for astro) and LoCa performance (visible in many areas of most of the samples I've seen where the lens is shot wide open), it doesn't perform at the same level as the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and Plena. I wanted to love this lens, but there's no way I drop that kind of money on it just to have a green and magenta tint to every photo that's impossible to correct in post....Show more →
Maybe it’s the price, it seems like some were expecting a 35mm 1.2 APO. If I wanted to buy one of those what would it cost? It doesn’t exist to my knowledge.
The LoCA performance is similar to the GM 1.4 and is much better than Sigma’s 35 1.2, comparing Christopher Frost’s reviews on YouTube. IMO the overall performance of this lens is similar to the 85 1.2, which also has some flaws.
How often do the users of this lens plan to shoot at f/1.2 at close distance? That’s a torture test scenario I don’t think this lens was designed to excel at. I have really enjoyed the images shown where this lens was used in practical situations. This lens has lovely rendering and LoCA can be reduced stopping down.
p.13 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
i have come to the realization that the detractors here are mostly finding a reason not to buy the lens despite the fact that it's very good. i get it... it's expensive...even i can't afford one at the moment, either (thanks to the US "income tax reform" of 2017 i'm paying more taxes /s)...but i'm certainly not going to pretend that the 35/1.2 is not very good for what it is.
making a WIDE lens with absolutely no LoCA/LaCA with fast aperture while maintaining sharpness with floating element is hard...it's only real competition is the Sigma 35/1.2 and it already beats that.. comparing it to the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 and expecting it to have the exact same LoCa/LaCA performance is unrealistic (and honestly who takes that many pictures of chrometastic stuff at that close distance wide open?) oh and BTW ... in similar situations 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 can have fringing, too...not to mention that the 85/1.2Z has a relatively not-so-short MFD which i find incredibly annoying...but i digress.
p.13 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Buckeye2604 wrote:
Maybe it’s the price, it seems like some were expecting a 35mm 1.2 APO. If I wanted to buy one of those what would it cost? It doesn’t exist to my knowledge.
i believe the 35/1.2Z can be considered apochromatic since it's using ED glass. historically afaik, Nikon never use the term APO but highlights that their top-tier lenses use ED glass to correct secondary CA (green/magenta fringing which is what LoCA is mostly). might be debatable if it's true APO, but i thought that's worth pointing out.
it doesn't diminish the merit of your comment, tho (to which i agree 100%)
p.13 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
.it's only real competition is the Sigma 35/1.2 and it already beats that
I seen sharpness comparison somewhere between the Sigma and the Nikon. The Nikon was way sharper at the edges. While both very close at the center.
in similar situations 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 can have fringing, too
the picture below is Nikon Z-lens 50mm f/1.2 wide open at close to minimum focus distance
p.13 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Buckeye2604 wrote:
Maybe it’s the price, it seems like some were expecting a 35mm 1.2 APO. If I wanted to buy one of those what would it cost? It doesn’t exist to my knowledge.
The LoCA performance is similar to the GM 1.4 and is much better than Sigma’s 35 1.2, comparing Christopher Frost’s reviews on YouTube. IMO the overall performance of this lens is similar to the 85 1.2, which also has some flaws.
How often do the users of this lens plan to shoot at f/1.2 at close distance? That’s a torture test scenario I don’t think this lens was designed to excel at. I have really enjoyed the images shown where this lens was used in practical situations. This lens has lovely rendering and LoCA can be reduced stopping down. ...Show more →
Err… i don’t think you can use Christopher frost review to judge LoCA as he does not have the same test pic for loca. I have used the sigma 35 f1.2 for many years. Its loca isn’t really that bad, more like average. My Sony 24mm Gm has worse loca. And of course Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and Nikon 35 1.4g all are worse too. U really have to use the lens for sometime or have a controlled test environment to compare.
I owned both the 35mm Gm and sigma f1.2 together for almost a year and I can safely say their loca performance are roughly equal, maybe the Gm is slightly better but not by much.
