fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4              17       18       end
  

Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

  
 
Ai_Print
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Dj R wrote:
I will want it. But it’s not a need.

The 50 1.2 is so amazing and I prefer it’s compression.
The 50 is prob the best lens I’ve had for light gathering, ever.
It’s unreal.

Sometimes I need a 35. But does it need to be 1.2, prob not!


I’m in this camp, my one and only 1.2 is the 50 and it is just perfect for a 1.2. I don’t even own a 35 anymore in Nikon because for that, I use 35mm 1.4 Leica on an M10-P, nothing will replace that combo.



Feb 04, 2025 at 11:52 PM
PIOK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread





Feb 04, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


It looks great optically as one would expect, but it’s again huge (with no Plena like lack of optical vignetting) and the price is frankly absurd.


Feb 05, 2025 at 12:00 AM
Alistair1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Petapixel's take here. The near and far fall-off, colours, contrast (especially contre-jour), CA, flare, general pop all look exceptional. It is big and heavy but is clearly designed to target those characteristics. Like the 50/1.2 I think.




Feb 05, 2025 at 12:08 AM
Outstanding
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Famous portrait photographer Julia Trotti compared Nikon 35 F1.2 vs adapted E mount Sigma F1.2, her observations -

Nikon has ever so finer clarity
Sigma has worse distortions
Sigma surprisingly has very sticky AF even when adapted
Nikon is ever so slightly shaper in finer details
Sigma is warmer

Overall they look very similar.


?si=KprNe8cZTooP8Z5s&t=359




Feb 05, 2025 at 12:50 AM
RustyRus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Well Nikon is taking the Zeiss approach for sure and going massive on these lenses-

At least the fantastic 35 1.4 z is around so you have choices. Way too big for a 35 to be considered for me. Looks nice so far though-



Feb 05, 2025 at 01:32 AM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


I was hoping it wasn't going to be this good, but looking at the results so far, it looks stunning. It will be difficult to resist.


Feb 05, 2025 at 02:03 AM
Ripolini
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Considering weight and size, I would much prefer a 28-70/2.



Feb 05, 2025 at 02:57 AM
snapsy
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


It looks like it will balance as well on my Z camera as it would my bank account.


Feb 05, 2025 at 03:17 AM
bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


The samples are absolutely stunning!

It is going to ship on 28-Feb in Japan, ordering starting on the 12-Feb.

Nikon is targeting to deliver the best lenses money can buy, there is clearly a cost associated to this, but if you factor in inflation it's only marginally more expensive that the F mount 35mm f1.4 when it shipped.

Somehow we are more sensitive to the impact of inflation on lenses than we are on food.

Cheers,
Bernard



Feb 05, 2025 at 03:42 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


bernardl wrote:
The samples are absolutely stunning!

It is going to ship on 28-Feb in Japan, ordering starting on the 12-Feb.

Nikon is targeting to deliver the best lenses money can buy, there is clearly a cost associated to this, but if you factor in inflation it's only marginally more expensive that the F mount 35mm f1.4 when it shipped.

Somehow we are more sensitive to the impact of inflation on lenses than we are on food.

Cheers,
Bernard


I am hopeful that the lens will arrive in store here before end of the month as the government is being kind and let certain
amount of purchase this month be tax exemptable. That would make the price a bit more bearable





Feb 05, 2025 at 04:03 AM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


ilkka_nissila wrote:
If the nominal apertures are accurate, the difference is 0.44 stops.

Exotic lenses from major camera manufacturers tend to be expensive especially at launch. After a while there will be rebates.


Ok, I will be a bit pedantic. It isn't an issue of accuracy but precision. We can't say .44 stops because we don't know the second decimal point. If we are calculating the difference in stops do we use 1.15 or 1.24 or something in between and all of those numbers accurately round to 1.2. The same is true for 1.4. Do we use 1.35 or 1.44 or something in between (here maybe we choose 1.41 as it is the square root of 2 and exactly one stop smaller than 1.00). The difference between 1.15 and 1.44 is not .44; neither is the difference between 1.24 and 1.35, yet both pairs would be comparing lenses accurately described as 1.2 vs. 1.4. There is no reason to assume that a lens described as 1.2 is 1.20 and a lens described as 1.4 is 1.40 and it is only if we make this assumption that the difference is .44 stops. We could say .4 stops but even then we would have to qualify that it could be a bit more or less and would round either to a third of a stop or a half of a stop. It depends on that next decimal point whether it would be closer to a third or a stop or it could be closer to half a stop. Aperture simply isn't reported precisely enough to calculate which it is.



Feb 05, 2025 at 05:11 AM
wind30
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Ripolini wrote:
Considering weight and size, I would much prefer a 28-70/2.


Sony has that and a 35mm f1.2 at much much cheaper price?

Honestly when u charge that amount of money, your lens need to be much better than competitors else it won't sell.

Like the Sony 28 70 f2 lens is much lighter than competitor.

What does the nikon 35mm f1.2 offer over the Sigma 35mm f1.2 to justify the price tag ? It is same size and weight, optically similar and yet so expensive.

I own both z8 and a7r5 and my only z lensis the 135mm plena as it is priced competitively and better optically vs competition.



Feb 05, 2025 at 05:21 AM
3catsinky
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


this looks absolutely delicious. For me, however, dragging around these huge heavy primes, is a thing of the past. I'll take the Sony 28-70 over this adapted. Much more versatile, for what I shoot.


Feb 05, 2025 at 06:25 AM
ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Steve Spencer wrote:
Ok, I will be a bit pedantic. It isn't an issue of accuracy but precision. We can't say .44 stops because we don't know the second decimal point.


"Accuracy" in today's ISO standard definition (ISO 5725-1:2023) includes both precision (how free of random errors the figures are) and trueness (how free of bias the figures are). In the past, accuracy only referred to trueness but this is no longer standard use of the terminology. The reason I used the term accuracy is because there could be not only rounding errors but also exaggeration to help sell the lenses based on aperture (which is bias, not covered by precision).

I gave two significant digits (4&4) because the input variables are given with two significant digits (1&2 and 1&4), and in this case the result should be given with the same number of significant digits in the absence of error limits for the input variables. If the numbers had been subtracted then there would be justification for keeping the number of nonzero digits after the decimal point the same (1 digit) but since they're divided, the number of significant digits should be the same in the result as in the less accurate of the inputs, in the absence of error limits or similar estimates of how accurate the inputs are. And that's two digits irrespective of where the decimal point is.

Now, what may be true is that the manufacturers use "familiar numbers" in the specifications instead of the true numbers (not only rounding but selecting a more favorable number than the correct one), but we don't know if that's the case here and if one or both manufacturers exaggerate the aperture to make the lens more marketable, which manufacturer is exaggerating more. So based on the given specifications, the difference can be estimated at 0.44 stops and only via measurements can we know any different. Even if we consider this information that the second digit is suspect (it is), by performing additional rounding (to .4) we would be introducing extra inaccuracy to the result. By keeping more digits we can minimize cumulative errors.

We could say .4 stops but even then we would have to qualify that it could be a bit more or less and would round either to a third of a stop or a half of a stop. It depends on that next decimal point whether it would be closer to a third or a stop or it could be closer to half a stop. Aperture simply isn't reported precisely enough to calculate which it is.

0.44 is closer to 1/2 stop than 1/3, which makes 1/3 stop appear prejudicious (either intentional or not); if this kind of a ball park expression is given then we should probably choose 1/2 stop instead of 1/3 stop. This is why I posted the calculation and used two digits to make the point clear.



Feb 05, 2025 at 06:32 AM
Buckeye2604
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread



wind30 wrote:
Sony has that and a 35mm f1.2 at much much cheaper price?

Honestly when u charge that amount of money, your lens need to be much better than competitors else it won't sell.

Like the Sony 28 70 f2 lens is much lighter than competitor.

What does the nikon 35mm f1.2 offer over the Sigma 35mm f1.2 to justify the price tag ? It is same size and weight, optically similar and yet so expensive.

I own both z8 and a7r5 and my only z lensis the 135mm plena as it is priced competitively and better optically vs competition.

1st party lenses always carry a higher price. It’s just the rule of law. Sony and Canon don’t have a 35 1.2 so all you can compare to is a cheaper third party - which from what I see doesn’t perform as well. When the other two first party manufactures release their version of a 35 1.2 bet on similar price and performance, with more focus breathing.



Feb 05, 2025 at 06:55 AM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


cmm1398 wrote:
2799. https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-35mm-f12-s/20124/overview


The price is high. The size is huge. That said, I think Nikon knows its market and has a smart strategy. Their best lenses they don't make small. They do not undercut the competition in price. They do, however, make excellent lenses that people who are willing to pay for these lenses enjoy. These lenses now include 35 f/1.2S, 50 f/1.2S, 58 f/0.95S, 85 f/1.2S, 135 f/1.8S Plena, 400 f/2.8 S TC, 600 f/2.8S TC. The 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 mostly follow this strategy as well but they aren't as extreme in performance, weight, or price as the prime lenses. This line is getting pretty complete, but I do expect a 28-70 f/2S at some point to compete with Canon and Sony. If we are ever to get a 200 f/2S, it will be this sort of lens too. And eventually, I would also expect a 100-300 f/2.8S as well. I would also expect PC lenses if they are made to be this sort of lens as well.

If that was all Nikon did, then I would consider the strategy a mistake, but they make two other lines of lens. One is the line of consumer non-S lenses that are super competitive in price, small in size, but yet with fairly fast apertures. That line now includes 26 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 40 f/2, 50 f/1.4, 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 and the Tamron crossover zooms 17-28 f/2.8, 28-75 f/2.8 and 70-180 f/2.8 almost fit in this category too. I expect in time we may get an 85 f/1.4, a 24 f/1.4, and maybe even a 135 f/2. These lenses are fast, small, and very price competitive but not competitive in quality with the no holds barred lenses in the first group.

Just those two types of lenses would be a compelling strategy in my view, but would have left a big gap between the two types of lenses and Nikon has filled that gap with the smaller, slower aperture, but still very high quality S lenses that are not the value of the consumer lenses, but more competitively priced than the uber lenses in the first class. Here we have the f/1.8 S prime lenses (20, 24, 35, 50, 85), the 400 f/4.5S, the 600 f/6.3 PF, the 800 f/6.3 PF. The f/4 S zooms mostly fit in this category as well: the 14-30 f/4S, the 24-70 f/4S, the 24-120 f/4S, the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6S. This line is mostly complete, but we may see a 70-200 f/4S, and maybe even a 135 f/2.8S, a 200 f/2.8S, or a 300 f/4S.

I think this multiple tier strategy let's Nikon get away with really high prices on the top tier. The fairly competitive prices on the middle tier, and very competitive prices on the consumer tier gives people decent choice and prevent the high pricing of the top tier from keeping people from adopting the platform.



Feb 05, 2025 at 07:04 AM
snapsy
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


Here's a full-sized infinity shot @ f/1.2 from DPR's Gallery. Click on "JPEG (20.9MB)"

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9046749776/nikon-nikkor-35mm-f1-2-s-pre-production-sample-gallery/3189194307



Feb 05, 2025 at 07:15 AM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread




ilkka_nissila wrote:
"Accuracy" in today's ISO standard definition (ISO 5725-1:2023) includes both precision (how free of random errors the figures are) and trueness (how free of bias the figures are). In the past, accuracy only referred to trueness but this is no longer standard use of the terminology. The reason I used the term accuracy is because there could be not only rounding errors but also exaggeration to help sell the lenses based on aperture (which is bias, not covered by precision).

I gave two significant digits (4&4) because the input variables are given with two significant digits (1&2 and 1&4), and
...Show more

F/1.2 is used as both a half stop and 1/3 stop faster in lens markings. No lens manufacturers use actual calculated f stops for ANY lens markings. They are always ‘close’ and f/1.2 is the number used in 1/3 stop increments on lenses. Manufacturers choose the standard f stops that most closely matches the lens actual f number.

Take a look at the oatents for some z lenses (some existing, some just patented in development):
https://nikonrumors.com/2021/03/08/the-latest-nikkor-z-lens-patents-from-nikon.aspx/

Many of the f/2.8 zooms are actually f/2.9. The Z 85/1.8 is actually an 83mm f/1.85.



Feb 05, 2025 at 07:18 AM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread


ilkka_nissila wrote:
"Accuracy" in today's ISO standard definition (ISO 5725-1:2023) includes both precision (how free of random errors the figures are) and trueness (how free of bias the figures are). In the past, accuracy only referred to trueness but this is no longer standard use of the terminology. The reason I used the term accuracy is because there could be not only rounding errors but also exaggeration to help sell the lenses based on aperture (which is bias, not covered by precision).

I gave two significant digits (4&4) because the input variables are given with two significant digits (1&2 and 1&4), and
...Show more

Ok, let's be really pedantic since you seem to want to be. I really dislike the ISO standard definition of accuracy. It confuses two concepts that should be distinguished and have traditionally been distinguished. It is sloppy, but that is just my opinion. Also when we talk about significant digits we have to realize that the last significant digit is not precise at all. So, when we say .44 using the second 4 as the last significant digit that 4 is not precise at all and the real value can be between . 25 and .54. What we know is the first .4 is within one of the true value. That is true even if the manufacturers are not rounding inappropriately. Pointing out the range of values that could would round to 1.2 and 1.4 makes that obvious and why I did it. Since all we know based on the precision with which aperture is reported is that the real stop difference is between .25 stops (which is obviously closer to a third of a stop as it is a quarter stop) and .54 (which is obviously closer to half a stop) all we should say is that the difference is about a third of a stop or a half of a stop. You are making the common mistake of thinking that the last significant digit has precision, when it does not. All we know when we report significant digits is the second to the last significant digit is within 1 of being accurate. (Note how distinguishing between precision and accuracy can be helpful.)

By the way, it is not clear to me that getting a lot more precise would be super helpful. After all even if we knew the aperture difference in stops more precisely we probably care most about light transmission which is affected by more than aperture. So, I am not sure we need to get a lot more precise in aperture, and might be better off trying to measure light transmission and be more precise there.



Feb 05, 2025 at 07:27 AM
1       2              4              17       18       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4              17       18       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account