p.10 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Outstanding wrote:
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...Show more →
Please. This “Sony 20mm 1.8 beats the Nikon 20mm 1.8 in every way” garbage started when the lenses first came out and apparently still continues. The lenses are very similar optically. The only thing the Sony “beats” the Nikon at is size and weight. And the Nikon is still small and light enough that I’ve taken it all over the world with me with no issue. I can see how the length may bother some people, but IMO even the size arguments are overblown and try to make the Nikon sound like it’s huge.
p.10 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Ah gotcha, that's amazing if it's even equal to the Canon RF 28-70mm f2 as that lens is nearly flawless optically (I own it). My only complaints are the slow clunky AF, size, and weight. It sounds like Sony resolved all three of those issues. I'm curious how the rendering is as I love the rendering of the RF. Even at 28mm f2 it has some beautiful bokeh. I wonder how well the Sony version adapts to Nikon.
wind30 wrote:
…. 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.
Of course that's just one test and nothing conclusive.
The length of the Nikons really bother me. I wish they had emphasized shorter lengths across the board. Especially for lenses like the 20mm f1.8, 24mm, 85mm, etc. Size and weight is Nikon's biggest weakness IMO as optically they seem to be very good across the board, especially their f1.2 lenses. I'd love to see something in between the $600 35mm f1.4 and the $2800 35mm f1.2 S, but without the length of the $800 35mm f1.8 S. Something like a $1500 35mm f1.4 S where size and weight are prioritized to differentiate it from the f1.2, similar to Sony's 35mm f1.4 GM and like what Canon did with their VCM lenses. I'm sure Nikon could and would have less optical compromises than Canon. Sony has my favorite "formula" lately. They prioritize size and weight but with less optical compromises than Canon.
Wezre wrote:
Please. This “Sony 20mm 1.8 beats the Nikon 20mm 1.8 in every way” garbage started when the lenses first came out and apparently still continues. The lenses are very similar optically. The only thing the Sony “beats” the Nikon at is size and weight. And the Nikon is still small and light enough that I’ve taken it all over the world with me with no issue. I can see how the length may bother some people, but IMO even the size arguments are overblown and try to make the Nikon sound like it’s huge.
p.10 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Wezre wrote:
Please. This “Sony 20mm 1.8 beats the Nikon 20mm 1.8 in every way” garbage started when the lenses first came out and apparently still continues. The lenses are very similar optically. The only thing the Sony “beats” the Nikon at is size and weight. And the Nikon is still small and light enough that I’ve taken it all over the world with me with no issue. I can see how the length may bother some people, but IMO even the size arguments are overblown and try to make the Nikon sound like it’s huge.
p.10 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Outstanding wrote:
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...Show more →
I generally agree with you and I think the overall Sony lens lineup is much stronger than Nikon when you compare similar lenses partly because they've been refreshing a lot of older lenses. I think the Nikon S-line up is in between Sony G to GM quality on f1.8 primes and f4 zooms. However, the f1.2 primes, plena, and f2.8 zooms are pretty much GM equivalents although I think some of the GM lenses are still ahead if you're really measuring sharpness. There's probably some different design philosophies at work here too.
With that said, where I think Sony has really fallen behind are on camera bodies. They don't have any particular good camera bodies right now except at the top of the range - A1II and A9III. The rest of the lineup is a bit stale or limited in different ways. When you compare the camera body line up, it's hard to ignore what the Z8, Z6III and even the ZF offers at their price points compared to what Sony has out. I pulled a trigger on the Z6III and I figure for my needs with it, the lens differences are secondary.
p.10 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Outstanding wrote:
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...Show more →
"Sony's 20 G F1.8 beats Nikon's S F1.8 in every which way."
Really? Sony lenses have improved a lot lately having brought out new versions of the key ones. The earlier ones were rather poor. But they still struggle at wider focal lengths with the smaller mount although internal processing and a clever sensor stack helps.
p.10 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
How about moving this discussion to a thread that is more appropriate.
This is a great place to let off steam without having to trash every other thread with the same garbage.
Everyone knows what to expect with this topic and you can avoid the thread directly.
But if you're interested in individual lenses, then you don't want to have to scroll through this whole theater to filter the few topic-related and meaningful posts.
This should be about the Z 35/1.2 S and not about infantile fanboy battles over who makes the best lenses.
It's just tiring when you're interested in the Z 35/1.2 S and it's all about Sony vs Nikon for pages on end, plus lenses that have nothing to do with the Z 35/1.2 S at all.
p.10 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Vento wrote:
How about moving this discussion to a thread that is more appropriate.
This is a great place to let off steam without having to trash every other thread with the same garbage.
Everyone knows what to expect with this topic and you can avoid the thread directly.
But if you're interested in individual lenses, then you don't want to have to scroll through this whole theater to filter the few topic-related and meaningful posts.
This should be about the Z 35/1.2 S and not about infantile fanboy battles over who makes the best lenses.
It's just tiring when you're interested in the Z 35/1.2 S and it's all about Sony vs Nikon for pages on end, plus lenses that have nothing to do with the Z 35/1.2 S at all....Show more →
Seriously-
People just need to move on- Stop arguing about non sense-
p.10 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
That makes zero sense. Every camera system could render a lens unusable with a firmware update. A 35 1.2 lens is a niche piece of glass, in the same realm as the 58 .95 noct, and the vast majority of folks will be happy with the Z 35 1.4 and 35 1.8 S. But guessing you're not trying to make a logical argument and just Sony fanboy trolling.
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...
p.10 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Outstanding wrote:
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...Show more →
Not sure about that. I tested the 50mm 1.4 GM against the Z 50mm 1.8 S, and in terms of sharpness and overall correction, the Z 50mm edged out the GM. I point out, even if the 1.8 S is a hair beneath a G Master, you're getting basically similar results for a lens that costs 1/3rd or 1/4th the price. Having adapted a lot of Sony glass, I never saw what you saw. I will say the GM II trinity are simply amazing. The 70-200 GM II was small, light, and almost prime lens sharp. Im seeking a Sony 20-70 G because I think thats a perfect lens.
p.10 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
The orders for the 35mm f1.2 will open tomorrow in Japan. I intend to order one, hopefully I’ll be among those that will get their lens on 2/28.
I’ll be shooting a dance event early March for which this lens would be absolutely perfect. I can’t think of any other piece of optics I’d rather use.
Cheers,
Bernard
Looking forward to seeing what you do with it. Your dance photography (one in particular that I am too lazy to look for) with the other 1.2 primes reminded me of Mary Ellen Mark's set photography with Federico Fellini
p.10 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
sungphoto wrote:
That makes zero sense. Every camera system could render a lens unusable with a firmware update. A 35 1.2 lens is a niche piece of glass, in the same realm as the 58 .95 noct, and the vast majority of folks will be happy with the Z 35 1.4 and 35 1.8 S. But guessing you're not trying to make a logical argument and just Sony fanboy trolling.
…. Who is the fanboy here? I said Sony has expensive bodies and Nikon has expensive lens. I usually don’t call people fanboy but it’s really irritating when people who are so super defensive about a system aka fanboys , just can’t take any criticism to their gear/brand. I own a z8 and plena and I enjoy using them, just like I enjoy my a7r5 and my e mount lenses.
Emount has so many manufacturers with so much competition for such a long time… if u can’t accept emount lens offer better value than z mount….
p.10 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Buckeye2604 wrote:
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.
+ 1. In addition, (if/when) we see versions from Sony and Canon, they'll likely have more distortion.
It is what it is though.