Zermelo
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.18 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread | |
dalegaspi wrote:
oh it's also a very good lens. don't listen to the haters.
is it the best lens I own (in my opinion)? no, that belongs to the Leica 35 APO SL. but the Leica is still more expensive _used_ than the this lens new and nobody can argue that it's that much better without sounding like a total douchebag (got to admit I kinda sound one right now just saying that)
I do not own any Leica systems or lenses, so I think my objectivity cannot be questioned: the 35mm APO-Summicron-SL f/2.0 is an absolute dream of pure balance and transparency, a true optical masterpiece. Naturally, 'APO' does not imply that every monochromatic aberration has been perfectly corrected, as that is mathematically impossible; rather, they have been suppressed to a point where they are nearly invisible to the naked eye. Any remaining residue is managed so that every element works in perfect harmony.
It is also worth noting that part of the final result is attributable to the Leica SL sensor. If, hypothetically, we could mount this lens with full compatibility onto a Sony, Nikon, or Canon body with identical specifications, the results would be significantly less rich. The inverse is also true: one wonders how certain lenses from those three brands would perform if the light they capture were processed by a Leica SL sensor. In my opinion, that Nikkor 35mm f/1.2 would be jaw-dropping, perhaps not reaching the level of perfection of the APO, but offering much greater complexity, plasticity and those liquid highlights.
Many people don't realize how complex and expensive it is to design a fast APO lens. It’s not just about correcting LoCA; it also addresses ASC, which requires maintaining a consistent aberration balance across the entire visible spectrum, rather than just a single wavelength. Every optical element introduced adds dispersion that must be carefully controlled. While creating a balanced 35mm f/1.2 is a tougher geometric challenge, engineering a 35mm f/2.0 APO is harder spectrally because it's a highly constrained parameter space problem. Therefore, the premium Leica asks for is fully justified: sure, you pay for the brand name and the closed system, but the engineering warrants it. Similarly, the Nikkor is worth every penny they ask because it represents a complex, delicate balancing act of optical compromises.
Keunish wrote:
I also own both the 35mm APO SL and the Nikon 35mm f1.2S.
The 35mm APO SL only shines in the center of the image wide open on my S1RII. It is much better on my SL2 and even mid frames are very strong. I can't explain why, maybe because of the sensor difference.
Futhermore, I found the 35mm APO SL to have sometimes a sort of slight "illumination" at the point of focus, making the subject to pop a lot. But this effect only appears when shooting photos and can't be seen on the viewfinder before taking the pic, it only appears when the photo has been taken. And it never happens in video, so I think it's just some processing....Show more →
I would bet that it comes down to the sensor. Leica’s highly vertical integration and its premium market positioning often raise eyebrows, even among die-hard fans, but it does have its advantages, two in particular:
1. Stricter sensor binning criteria: Leica selects diodes with more uniform performance and lower read noise. Because of this, a carefully selected photodiode recovers shadows and highlights more linearly. Clipping isn't abrupt; it follows a graceful curve, allowing the sensor to capture chromatic and luminance information right up to the saturation point before the signal collapses, far better than standard sensors of the same type. The costs associated with the high rejection rate are significant and would be unsustainable for any brand not positioned as high-end as Leica. This quality is evident in the smooth tonal transitions, the richness of whites, and the 'liquid' quality of the highlights.
2. System-wide optimization: Every Leica system features lenses specifically engineered for that exact body. This synergy allows each lens to perform at its absolute peak. Conversely, the fact that I can mount the same Nikon lens on a Z6, Z9, Zf, or ZR, bodies with vastly different purposes and internal architectures, gives me more versatility, but at the cost of not having a body that pushes the lens to its full potential.
The loss of detail near clipping (or 'loss of illumination', as you put it) in video can depend on a few factors. For instance, codec and bitrate: the DCT compression of in-camera profiles eats away at some of the fine texture. Furthermore, if the SL doesn't perform a full-resolution sensor readout (I'm not sure if that's the case here, but many full frame cameras don't), some sharpness is already gone before compression even happens. Finally, video processors tend to add artificial sharpening to mask the drop in actual resolution. This is exactly why cinema cameras with more sophisticated codecs and processors make sense, they are dedicated tools designed to preserve as much fine detail as possible.
Keunish wrote:
My Nikon 35mm f1.2S is maybe one of the lens I use the most. The contrast and colors are out of this world. However, the lens is clearly not as sharp as the Sigma 35mm f1.2 DG II and much less sharp than the 35mm APO SL or Sigma 28-45mm (I tried 3 copies of the Nikon).
If you stop the Nikkor down to f/2.0, MTF charts show that its sharpness at the center and mid-frame is identical to the APO-Summicron, while the corners perform only slightly worse. This is due to the inherent compromises of designing an f/1.2 lens: correcting for field curvature and SA introduces a mild corner astigmatism. On a native f/2.0 lens, this aberration is negligible wide open, whereas on an f/1.2 lens stopped down to f/2.0, it remains slightly more pronounced because the ultra-fast aperture exacerbates the issue, scaling linearly with each stop.
The Sigma is slightly sharper at the center but loses ground in the mid-frame. In my opinion, this is due to slightly better control over lateral chromatic aberration compared to the Nikkor, but it comes at the expense of rendering quality and spherical aberration control.
An f/1.2 35mm lens will always be a product of compromise; there is a reason Leica decided that its APO Summicron lenses should be f/2.0 and no faster. It is the maximum aperture that allows for a true apochromatic correction without letting the lens's size and weight skyrocket. Of course, if we were willing to accept a lens measuring 600mm x 200mm and weighing 80kg, then we could certainly build an f/1.2 35mm APO lens (one that is genuinely certified by Leica standards, not just marketing talk  ).
|
