p.14 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dalegaspi wrote:
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....Show more →
The 35 1.2 is obviously an amazing optic- For a wedding or full time portrait photographer you can probably make do with the shortcomings.
Honestly the only REAL shortcoming that would stop me from wanting it is the size. I would like to see more examples of shooting wide open for an environmental scene vs just blown out background close ups. I think that is where lenses like this can shine when getting the character of the lens wide open, but still maintaining the context of the scene.
Nikon has 3 options at 35 and all very differnt- I just wish one of them was an S line compact (the 35 1.8 is not compact)
p.14 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dalegaspi wrote:
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.
Do you think it's unfair for people to make judgements on whether a lens is worth their money or not?
Nikon has a hard sell here...it's expensive, and it's huge. That implies that the IQ should be best in class with no caveats.
Well, they are occupying a space with no competition at the moment, so you could argue that no matter what shortcomings this lens has, it's best in class. Go find another 35/1.2! All we have to go off of are similar lenses that occupy a similar market position...the 50, 85, and 135 are our best comparison points. Big, expensive lenses that offer the best IQ available to Nikon Z shooters.
A lens being "very good" doesn't make it an obvious purchase, especially when the size and price are primary factors.
I don't think many here are saying that the LoCA that the 35 exhibits is prohibitive for a potential purchase. We are saying, however, that it exists, is present in MANY examples posted here and other places, and should be considered when evaluating a big purchase like this, instead of beating a fanboy drum, burying one's' head deep in Nikon branded sands. Is the 35 exceptional? That's pretty subjective.
p.14 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Do you think it's unfair for people to make judgements on whether a lens is worth their money or not?
Nikon has a hard sell here...it's expensive, and it's huge. That implies that the IQ should be best in class with no caveats.
Well, they are occupying a space with no competition at the moment, so you could argue that no matter what shortcomings this lens has, it's best in class. Go find another 35/1.2! All we have to go off of are similar lenses that occupy a similar market position...the 50, 85, and 135 are our best comparison points. Big, expensive lenses that offer the best IQ available to Nikon Z shooters.
A lens being "very good" doesn't make it an obvious purchase, especially when the size and price are primary factors.
I don't think many here are saying that the LoCA that the 35 exhibits is prohibitive for a potential purchase. We are saying, however, that it exists, is present in MANY examples posted here and other places, and should be considered when evaluating a big purchase like this, instead of beating a fanboy drum, burying one's' head deep in Nikon branded sands. Is the 35 exceptional? That's pretty subjective....Show more →
My thoughts exactly. People keep saying that there's no LoCa, or that it's minimal, or less than the Sigma 35 1.2 and Sony 35 1.4 GM, but I've yet to see a side-by-side comparison under consistent conditions. Same thing with sharpness: other than a YouTube video I saw when the lens was first announced that compared it to the Sigma, I've yet to see a detailed review. I have no doubt that the lens will perform well in the right hands, but I see no harm in evaluating and criticizing how the lens performs when potential purchasers are spending $2,800 on it. There's a massive leap in price, size, and weight from the 35 1.4 and 35 1.8S to this lens, and it's also twice the price and weight of the Sony 35 1.4 GM. There should also be a massive leap in performance and optical correction if you're paying such a steep cost from your wallet and in your bag.
p.14 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Wezre wrote:
There's a massive leap in price, size, and weight from the 35 1.4 and 35 1.8S to this lens, and it's also twice the price and weight of the Sony 35 1.4 GM. There should also be a massive leap in performance and optical correction if you're paying such a steep cost from your wallet and in your bag.
p.14 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Wezre wrote:
My thoughts exactly. People keep saying that there's no LoCa, or that it's minimal, or less than the Sigma 35 1.2 and Sony 35 1.4 GM, but I've yet to see a side-by-side comparison under consistent conditions. Same thing with sharpness: other than a YouTube video I saw when the lens was first announced that compared it to the Sigma, I've yet to see a detailed review. I have no doubt that the lens will perform well in the right hands, but I see no harm in evaluating and criticizing how the lens performs when potential purchasers are spending $2,800 on it. There's a massive leap in price, size, and weight from the 35 1.4 and 35 1.8S to this lens, and it's also twice the price and weight of the Sony 35 1.4 GM. There should also be a massive leap in performance and optical correction if you're paying such a steep cost from your wallet and in your bag....Show more →
There’s a significant improvement in performance from the Z f/1.4 lenses to f/1.2. I believe that’s why Nikon chose to design the f/1.4 series with all its optical flaws. While the better corrected 1.8 series is available at a higher price vs 1.4, now we need to consider the additional light loss in that comparison vs 1.2 and every 1.2 lens has exceed the 1.8 performance so far. There has always been diminishing returns when factoring price when moving from 1.8 to 1.4(the new 1.2). This concept is not new.
Regarding the GM lens, it has a specific application that it’s not ideal for: video. Unless it’s used on a Sony system with their digital corrections (now you no longer have a 35mm lens), it’s essentially useless for video production. What’s the cost of this limitation?
I’m not saying the cost of this lens is appropriate or not, that’s up for the buyer to determine.
p.14 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
It was out a few days ago here for around 1k usd in Singapore. I trust Philipreeve because he does ab shots and he use the sigma f1.2. I am probably going to get the viltrox but nobody wants my old sigma at around 750usd…
p.14 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
dalegaspi wrote:
eh i just don't understand why there's so much hate on 35/1.2 when the 85/1.2 costs the same and not totally free of loca either
Strange indeed.
The whole story started with a claim that the 35mm f1.2 S was displaying high amount of fringing. At least we now seem to agree that fringing is extremely well corrected and that the only visible aberration is some amount of LoCA of which absolutely no very bright prime is completely free of, especially for wide angle lenses.
p.14 #13 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
I’m surprised to see the lack of posting in the Nikon Z 35mm image thread , specially coming from the “expected” posters that usually are very quick on putting their hands on the latest and greatest lenses from Nikon.
I guess the price and the size of the 35mm 1.2 is a very important contributing factor.
p.14 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
youie wrote:
I’m surprised to see the lack of posting in the Nikon Z 35mm image thread , specially coming from the “expected” posters that usually are very quick on putting their hands on the latest and greatest lenses from Nikon.
I guess the price and the size of the 35mm 1.2 is a very important contributing factor.
While I can't speak for others, I guess I am one of those people who quickly get their hands on fast Nikkors in the people/reportage focal range once they're available. For me the issue with this lens is just that I find the f/1.8 S-line primes excellent for my purposes and I can carry a set of focal lengths on me without any weight issue or even being forced to limit myself to primes only. I often go with 20/1.8, 35/1.8, 85/1.8 and then 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. I definitely can see uses for the f/1.2 primes but it's not a high priority for me as the in-camera VR, electronic shutter (in some cases) and high wide-open sharpness have meant that the f/1.8 set is very practical for situations where I would have in the past used faster lenses to achieve the required shutter speed for many situations. I think the 35/1.2 and 85/1.2 would form a nice pair but since I don't technically need them and I appreciate the lighter weight bag, I have not put them in any priority list of purchases to be made. However, I am reasonably confident eventually I will get them and use them for portraits and low-light event situations. I suspect though that people may react to the huge size of these lenses and usually it's better for me that the photography happens without too much attention on the part of the subjects.
I have not seen anything in the 35/1.2 pics which would make me not want to buy this lens, it's just not a priority purchase due to reasons unrelated to its optical quality.
p.14 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
I haven’t had a chance to post any images yet, but this is the best 35mm lens I have ever used. The rendering and bokeh are very remarkable at f/1.2 especially for environmental portraits. It also makes the perfect pair with the 85 f/1.2. Only negatives are price and weight, but that is to be expected.
p.14 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
I sold mine a few months ago. In real world usage the LoCA was noticeable. No worse than the 28mm 1.4e or the 105 1.4e and I love those lenses. But those lenses don’t cost 3k and aren’t excessively big. The 85mm 1.2s I’ve never noticed it in real world use except in very rare extreme circumstances. The rendering on that lens is truly special too. I also find the 35 1.2s vignette to be really distracting and the rendering good but I prefer the 28s rendering. 28mm has strong vignette wide open too but I like it on that lens. The 35mm 1.2s also wasn’t great for Astro. The sigma 40 is significantly better.
I think all of the 35 1.2s imperfections would be forgivable if it were smaller cheaper or both. Given its size, weight, and price it needed to be better.
p.14 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
While not the fastest to focus its a amazing lens. The lens is heavy and expensive but if 35mm is your most used focal length its worth it. I use this lens for nearly everything.
