p.9 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
I really don't understand why to expect the lens price would follow IQ by linear dependency.
Whoever messed up with high end audio can understand easily what I'm talking about.
From great to little better can get quickly very expensive.
I was in it for part of my life, but thanks God, I got out of that addiction.
These lens comparisons remind me to it.
p.9 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
cvrle59 wrote:
I really don't understand why to expect the lens price would follow IQ by linear dependency.
Whoever messed up with high end audio can understand easily what I'm talking about.
From great to little better can get quickly very expensive.
I was in it for part of my life, but thanks God, I got out of that addiction.
These lens comparisons remind me to it.
Exactly.
The key being to know what matters for what application.
p.9 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
cvrle59 wrote:
I really don't understand why to expect the lens price would follow IQ by linear dependency.
Whoever messed up with high end audio can understand easily what I'm talking about.
From great to little better can get quickly very expensive.
I was in it for part of my life, but thanks God, I got out of that addiction.
These lens comparisons remind me to it.
Same here. I love my audio but it quickly escalates into mega$. That is why I did much of my own speaker work and tweaking amongst other electronics back in the day.
The lens cost/size/weight factor of lenses is just another target for those that want to preach the superiority of their selection of manufacturer or lens choice.
p.9 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
And the gap is clearly smaller than the price difference would suggest.
Cheers,
Bernard
Honestly, if price were a factor, the best thing to do is stick with APS-C or your camera phone. This is like saying my sports car is better value for the money and almost as good because it costs only $500k while yours cost $1 million but it's not twice as fast. Like you said, most people won't see the difference or care so why pay the premium for Nikon full frame over APS-C?
Taken to the logical extent, the good enough argument is weak because if you're not on one of the extremes, the cut off is arbitrary based on whether it's your brand of choice or not. I'm sure a lot of people here would be singing a different tune about how awesome nikon is if they made a native version of the 35mm f1.4 GM.
p.9 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
I don’t think they are. The bokeh of the 35mm f14 Z is very pleasing in many situations. Zooming at 100% on a worst case scenario is not representative of the vast majority of images.
And the gap is clearly smaller than the price difference would suggest.
Cheers,
Bernard
you keep adding on conditions... if you are not going to zoom in and view the pic at low res, just use your handphone. why even bother with a big camera? It does not have to be worst case scenario I think is the point most people is making. The nikon 35mm f1.4 bokeh is very different and you can see it in probably many pics once you know what to look for. Whether it matters to you, that is subjective.
p.9 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
RustyRus wrote:
The 35 1.4 Z is the best 35 you can get for the money on any system- I would take it over the 35 1.2 100/100 times.
With that being said, if you can’t notice a differnt in the bokeh between the 35 1.2 and the 35 1.4- there isn’t much else to be said-
I prefer this Bokeh buts its nothing like the 35 1.2-
you don''t notice the rim highlights? Like I said the difference is there but if you are not bothered by it, why not. And if you only shoot at such distance, sure I think the 35mm f1.4 is pretty good value for money as at such distance, the DOF is so thin, the background gets obliterated anyway.
I use the 35mm for full body shots a LOT (to have a sense of environment as I shoot on vacations) and the samples are much worse at that distance.
p.9 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
wind30 wrote:
you keep adding on conditions... if you are not going to zoom in and view the pic at low res, just use your handphone. why even bother with a big camera? It does not have to be worst case scenario I think is the point most people is making. The nikon 35mm f1.4 bokeh is very different and you can see it in probably many pics once you know what to look for. Whether it matters to you, that is subjective.
We are saying the same thing.
It is just as arbitrary to call the 35mm f1.4 Z the ideal price to performance compromise as it is to call the 35mm f1.4 GM that best compromise compared to the f1.2 S, which has been my point all along. it depends on the application and on personal preference.
As far as APS-C goes that may be the best compromise for some but you add further limitations in terms of DR, focusing performance (not intrinsic to aPS-C but there are no flagships), limited lenses line up,…
As far as I am concerned, as a former owner of the 35mm f1.4 GM I find it to be a great lens but I always felt it lacked a bit of subject separation for what I do and found the bokeh nicer than that of the 135mm f1.8 but still a bit boring. The f1.2 S will be the best compromise for me but it wouldn’t cross my mind to declare this personal preference as a universal truth.
Calling the 35mm f1.4 Z crappy would be absurd. It’s a good lens and even an excellent lens if you use it within what it does we’ll.
p.9 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
cvrle59 wrote:
I really don't understand why to expect the lens price would follow IQ by linear dependency.
Whoever messed up with high end audio can understand easily what I'm talking about.
From great to little better can get quickly very expensive.
I was in it for part of my life, but thanks God, I got out of that addiction.
These lens comparisons remind me to it.
no one is expecting that right? if anything, people here are arguing that the difference is too small... even using the crappy 35mm f1.4 z as a comparison...
I mean if people are trying to argue that the difference between the 35mm 1.4 z and a top tier 35mm lens is small, isn't it understood that the difference between the 35mm f1.2 sigma and nikon will be minuscule?
So people need to differentiate their lens in OTHER ways if they want to charge like 2x more.... assuming they want to be competitive. Look at sony 28-70mm f/2 lens. Expensive yes. Can they beat the canon 28-80 f/2 in terms of optics? No because the canon was close to perfect so Sony went after size and weight. Nikon did nothing to differentiate and still charged 2x the price. That is something I don't agree with.
Edit: ok maybe if the Nikon is much better at flare resistance, it might be a significant improvement. One thing I notice about the sigma f1.2 is the flare resistance is pretty average...
p.9 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
wind30 wrote:
you don''t notice the rim highlights? Like I said the difference is there but if you are not bothered by it, why not. And if you only shoot at such distance, sure I think the 35mm f1.4 is pretty good value for money as at such distance, the DOF is so thin, the background gets obliterated anyway.
I use the 35mm for full body shots a LOT (to have a sense of environment as I shoot on vacations) and the samples are much worse at that distance.
I am not trying to convince or sway anyone towards the 35 1.4- The 1.2 looks like an amazing optic.
I am just saying, if you can't notice a difference in the bokeh, even at normal viewing distance, there isn't anything to be arguing about. Its so obvious- The 35 1.4 has very classic style bokeh-
p.9 #11 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
We are saying the same thing.
It is just as arbitrary to call the 35mm f1.4 Z the ideal price to performance compromise as it is to call the 35mm f1.4 GM that best compromise compared to the f1.2 S, which has been my point all along. it depends on the application and on personal preference.
As far as APS-C goes that may be the best compromise for some but you add further limitations in terms of DR, focusing performance (not intrinsic to aPS-C but there are no flagships), limited lenses line up,…
As far as I am concerned, as a former owner of the 35mm f1.4 GM I find it to be a great lens but I always felt it lacked a bit of subject separation for what I do and found the bokeh nicer than that of the 135mm f1.8 but still a bit boring. The f1.2 S will be the best compromise for me but it wouldn’t cross my mind to declare this personal preference as a universal truth.
p.9 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
wind30 wrote:
then the big question is why not the sigma 35mm f1.2? Since you are not bothered by size and weight which is the no1 disadvantage of the sigma f1.2
Interestingly enough I used to own it also. And overall it’s very nice. On the slightly negative side, it was better on my Sony bodies that adapted on the Nikons and AF was too slow for action. I was not a major fan of the bokeh but it was fine.
If there were a Nikon version and if action weren’t by main use cases it would definitely be a credible contender.
p.9 #13 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
pemanja93 wrote:
As I see on photorumors, Viltrox will announce 35mm f1.2(and 50mm and 85mm f1.2) in 2 months, and 35mm will be lighter, and almost 4x cheaper than Nikon(around 700$), which is insane...but we will see...even if they put 1000-1200$ for 35mm, it will be a great price.
I just hope AF will work as it should, and we know Viltrox will make it really good optically, so this will be exciting year for us.
I own their 20mm and it's great for the price. I also own their 1.33x EPIC anamorphic lenses and they are incredible.
I really hope they come in swinging with the 35mm 1.2, sacrifice some corner performance for smaller size and great rendering.
p.9 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Because adapted lenses won’t work as well as a native lens. One firmware update could turn an adapted lens into an expensive paperweight, and in my experience there is always a difference in native vs adapted glass autofocus performance. If you want a native 35 1.2 then it’s the only option.
wind30 wrote:
then the big question is why not the sigma 35mm f1.2? Since you are not bothered by size and weight which is the no1 disadvantage of the sigma f1.2
p.9 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
sungphoto wrote:
Because adapted lenses won’t work as well as a native lens. One firmware update could turn an adapted lens into an expensive paperweight, and in my experience there is always a difference in native vs adapted glass autofocus performance. If you want a native 35 1.2 then it’s the only option.
if that is the only reason, it means the nikon z mount is not competitive... which I kind of agree. I have both a7r5 and z8, the only z mount lens I have is the plena and 50mm f1.8 s (cheap s mount lens).
Sony has expensive bodies and Nikon has expensive lens... I guess they have to make money somewhere...
p.9 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Hava you compared the Canon RF 28-70mm f2 with the Sony 28-70mm f2 or seen a comparison that shows the Canon to be better?
wind30 wrote: no one is expecting that right? if anything, people here are arguing that the difference is too small... even using the crappy 35mm f1.4 z as a comparison...
I mean if people are trying to argue that the difference between the 35mm 1.4 z and a top tier 35mm lens is small, isn't it understood that the difference between the 35mm f1.2 sigma and nikon will be minuscule?
So people need to differentiate their lens in OTHER ways if they want to charge like 2x more.... assuming they want to be competitive. Look at sony 28-70mm f/2 lens. Expensive yes. Can they beat the canon 28-80 f/2 in terms of optics? No because the canon was close to perfect so Sony went after size and weight. Nikon did nothing to differentiate and still charged 2x the price. That is something I don't agree with.
Edit: ok maybe if the Nikon is much better at flare resistance, it might be a significant improvement. One thing I notice about the sigma f1.2 is the flare resistance is pretty average......Show more →
p.9 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
wind30 wrote:
if that is the only reason, it means the nikon z mount is not competitive... which I kind of agree. I have both a7r5 and z8, the only z mount lens I have is the plena and 50mm f1.8 s (cheap s mount lens).
Sony has expensive bodies and Nikon has expensive lens... I guess they have to make money somewhere...
I wouldn’t say Nikon has expensive lenses. They’re higher and lower priced depending where you look. Like Nikons trinity I believe is cheaper than Canon and Sony. Their 1.8 S primes are essentially G Master quality optics at 1/3rd or 1/4th the price. I still believe Nikon is the value leader. But, Sony has so much glass. Each company has their strengths and weakness. But in my opinion, for value, Nikon takes the cake.
p.9 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
PixiPhotography wrote:
I wouldn’t say Nikon has expensive lenses. They’re higher and lower priced depending where you look. Like Nikons trinity I believe is cheaper than Canon and Sony. Their 1.8 S primes are essentially G Master quality optics at 1/3rd or 1/4th the price. I still believe Nikon is the value leader. But, Sony has so much glass. Each company has their strengths and weakness. But in my opinion, for value, Nikon takes the cake.
I think it's kinda unfair to compare F1.4 GMs to S F1.8 lenses.
I would say S line is similar to Sony's G lineup for eg. Sony 20mm F1.8 G and 20-70 F4.
Sigma's 'i' Series lenses have quality optics when it comes to their 65mm F2 or 24mm F2 or 50mm F2 or 90mm F2.8
Sony's 20 G F1.8 beats Nikon's S F1.8 in every which way.
Nikon has best standard zoom in S 24-120 F4, best nifty fifty in 50 S, arguably telephoto zoom when it comes to video in 180-600.
But I like Sony's differentiation in FE, G, GM.
E mount users are spoiled as they can pickup Sigma Art F1.4 lenses at the price of Nikon's F1.8 S lenses. Sigma has not set a foot wrong in last 2 years, imagine if you had native Z mount Sigma 500mm F5.6
p.9 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
AlphaPhotography wrote:
Hava you compared the Canon RF 28-70mm f2 with the Sony 28-70mm f2 or seen a comparison that shows the Canon to be better?
…. I did not say the canon was better…. The message I was trying to say both lens are really good optically so Sony had to find another angle to attack. You can see the hard work Sony put in the RnD. Unlike Nikon for the 35mm f1.2.
it depends on the application and on personal preference.
no one is expecting that right? if anything, people here are arguing that the difference is too small... even using the crappy 35mm f1.4 z as a comparison...