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

       2       3       4       5       end
  

Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?

  
 
loudtiger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


The other lenses I'm comparing them to are the new Sigma 35/1.2 and Sony 50/1.2. If anyone has any technical knowledge as to why, I'd love to learn more. I'm sure Nikon didn't make them large just to do it, so I'm thinking there must be compromises made by the other manufacturers to get them small.


Sep 09, 2025 at 03:34 PM
jrscls
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


Probably more optically corrected and less profile correction needed. You also get really nice rendering with the Nikkors.


Sep 09, 2025 at 04:20 PM
RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


This. Nikon is chasing optical quality over compactness + software correction.

jrscls wrote:
Probably more optically corrected and less profile correction needed. You also get really nice rendering with the Nikkors.




Sep 09, 2025 at 04:28 PM
jrscls
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


The opposite approach to Nikon's would be Canon’s new VCM lenses that are designed to the same size and heavily rely on software corrections. The Sony 50mm f/1.2GM is a great lens if you shoot Sony bodies. The Sigma 35mm f/1.2 looks nice as well, but the Nikon 35mm f/1.2 is probably one of Nikon's best lenses IMO.

Edited on Sep 09, 2025 at 06:01 PM · View previous versions



Sep 09, 2025 at 04:41 PM
bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


Having owned both the Nikon and Sony 50mm f1.2 I prefer the Nikon optically. The Sony is arguably a bettter compromise btwn optical quality vs size.

My guess is that Nikon will update their 50mm f1.2 S within 6 months using the technology displayed in the 24-70mm f2.8 II.

The new Sigma seems great but the Nikon 35mm f1.2 S is just insanely good. A piece of art.

Cheers,
Bernard



Sep 09, 2025 at 05:21 PM
PixiPhotography
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


They certainly are heavier. Took all four plus a 70-200 on a shoot and my back felt it but as others said, Nikon tends to be more corrected, especially like the Plena which has no vignetting and that's optically resolved. Nikon also tends to get rid of focus breathing, although the Plena has some.







Sep 09, 2025 at 05:58 PM
newyork
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


Damn I need like 3 more jobs 😢

PixiPhotography wrote:
They certainly are heavier. Took all four plus a 70-200 on a shoot and my back felt it but as others said, Nikon tends to be more corrected, especially like the Plena which has no vignetting and that's optically resolved. Nikon also tends to get rid of focus breathing, although the Plena has some.




Sep 09, 2025 at 06:12 PM
v5planet
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


bernardl wrote

My guess is that Nikon will update their 50mm f1.2 S within 6 months using the technology displayed in the 24-70mm f2.8


I’d like to believe this because the size of the 50/1.2 has scared me off from buying it on more than one occasion (though I’m considering it once again…). But is there something in particular about the design of the 50/1.2 that makes it amenable to integrating the 24-70/2.8II advancements?



Sep 09, 2025 at 08:46 PM
old-gregg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


I am in the process of evaluating several Z-Nikkors within the 24-200mm range. S-primes only. Unfortunately I only found one competitive specimen, the 105mm macro. Nothing else feels modern, sorry. And no, they are not better corrected than their Sony counterparts. They are simply worse in every way. Don't get me wrong: they are good lenses, they are an upgrade from the F-era, but they're not in the same league as 2015+ era competition.

Engineering is an art of constraints. If you remove the weight and price constraints, you leisurely sink into the world of 1.2S primes, Nokts, and Plenas. But if you really want to be impressed, Nikon will sell you a stepper lens for $50M. Yes, million. But bring constraints back, and you get f/1.8 S-primes. Hard pass.

I would encourage everyone to consider a simpler explanation: Nikon has fallen behind. It shouldn't be a surprise after years of the perpetually declinining market share in a shrinking market. I am convinced that either there are competitors' patents blocking them from catching up, or supply chain issues preventing them from procuring some key ingredient at an acceptable price/volume ratio, or they simply don't have the expertize to build the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM at a given price. Or all of the above.



Sep 09, 2025 at 09:48 PM
Alistair1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


old-gregg wrote:
I am in the process of evaluating several Z-Nikkors within the 24-200mm range. S-primes only. Unfortunately I only found one competitive specimen, the 105mm macro. Nothing else feels modern, sorry. And no, they are not better corrected than their Sony counterparts. They are simply worse in every way. Don't get me wrong: they are good lenses, they are an upgrade from the F-era, but they're not in the same league as 2015+ era competition.

I would encourage everyone to consider a simpler explanation: Nikon has fallen behind. It shouldn't be a surprise after years of the perpetually declinining market share in
...Show more

Many, if not most of us, also own or have owned Sony lenses and know the truth. There is only so far software corrections, asymmetric microlenses and greasy-palmed influencers will go. But nice try, we have been missing these contributions from our Sony friends lately. And while the 105/2.8 reviews as being close to perfect, it is the poorest performer of the lenses being discussed.



Sep 09, 2025 at 10:34 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


v5planet wrote:
I’d like to believe this because the size of the 50/1.2 has scared me off from buying it on more than one occasion (though I’m considering it once again…). But is there something in particular about the design of the 50/1.2 that makes it amenable to integrating the 24-70/2.8II advancements?


Its size has been brought forward by many Sony folks as a demonstration that Nikon cannot do mirrorless right. Even if the size is the result of some design choices (mostly the intention to limit focus breathing).

I don't think that Nikon will want to stay in this situation too long.

Cheers,
Bernard



Sep 10, 2025 at 05:00 AM
Ripolini
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


loudtiger wrote:
If anyone has any technical knowledge as to why, I'd love to learn more. I'm sure Nikon didn't make them large just to do it


According to Nikon, the Z mount has a short flange focal distance (16 mm) that, combined with a large 55mm mount diameter, allows for more flexible optical design, enabling compact lenses and improved light-gathering capabilities ...
"By creating a mount with a large inner diameter and short flange focal distance, compact lenses can be designed that allow more light in, to hit the sensor." [source: https://www.nikonusa.com/learn-and-explore/c/products-and-innovation/nikon-z-series-z-mount-system]




Sep 10, 2025 at 05:57 AM
jrscls
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


old-gregg wrote:
I am in the process of evaluating several Z-Nikkors within the 24-200mm range. S-primes only. Unfortunately I only found one competitive specimen, the 105mm macro. Nothing else feels modern, sorry. And no, they are not better corrected than their Sony counterparts. They are simply worse in every way. Don't get me wrong: they are good lenses, they are an upgrade from the F-era, but they're not in the same league as 2015+ era competition.

Engineering is an art of constraints. If you remove the weight and price constraints, you leisurely sink into the world of 1.2S primes, Nokts, and Plenas. But
...Show more

I normally don't bother to engage to posts like this, but I disagree with your assessment. I shot Sony for several years including an A1 and A7RV, and while they are excellent, I prefer the Nikon system. The Z8 is an excellent all rounder, and I love the Zf for something a bit more fun. Also alot to like in the Z5 II and Z6 III for those that don't need the extra resolution or retro body.

The 35mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 S lenses are not available from Sony (unless you get a 35 f/1.2 third party); however, the Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM is a very nice option for Sony users. The Nikon 135 mm Plena is as good as it gets.

While the f/1.2 primes might be heavier, I prefer the lighterweight 600 PF for wildlife over Sony's options. The Nikon 105 f/2.8 Z Macro is also one of my favorite macro lenses ever and much better than Sony's outdated 90mm macro.

For zooms, the 14-24 is a great performer at a reasonable size, excellent IQ and ability to take filters without a bulbous front element. I also prefer the Nikon 24-120 f/4 S over Sony's 24-105 f/4 G.

Both systems are excellent. but there are a lot of good reasons to choose Nikon. Glad to have choices.



Sep 10, 2025 at 06:52 AM
bernardl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


old-gregg wrote:
I am in the process of evaluating several Z-Nikkors within the 24-200mm range. S-primes only. Unfortunately I only found one competitive specimen, the 105mm macro. Nothing else feels modern, sorry. And no, they are not better corrected than their Sony counterparts. They are simply worse in every way. Don't get me wrong: they are good lenses, they are an upgrade from the F-era, but they're not in the same league as 2015+ era competition.

Engineering is an art of constraints. If you remove the weight and price constraints, you leisurely sink into the world of 1.2S primes, Nokts, and Plenas. But
...Show more

Having used both Sony and Nikon offerings, I have to disagree.

Each time both brands offer a lens, the Nikon ends up being optically better, sometimes at the cost or more weight.

Now Sony has some outstanding lenses not yet available in Z mount, such as the 28-70mm f2.0 (even if I think this focal range is not very useful) and 50-150mm 2.0. But Nikon will come up with their own versions very soon and I suspect with more useful focal ranges. For now the sony lenses can be adapted to Z mount with excellent AF.

But then the lack of 35mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 in FE mount would be unacceptable for me at this point. Many of my best images in 2025 could simply not have been captured with Sony equipment, or at least not without significant compromises.

Cheers,
Bernard



Sep 10, 2025 at 07:49 AM
old-gregg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


I did my best trying to choose words carefully to avoid over-generalization. My comment was focused on primes and only those under 200mm. As an owner of 3 Nikon bodies, including the Z8, I know better than screaming that Sony is all-around better.

Nikon appears to be doing well on the long side, and with zooms. But their bread-and-butter primes are mediocre, sorry. I am not going to lug around a 1kg prime. It's ridiculous. Those f/1.2 dumbells are studio lenses.

The f/1.8 S primes should have been either 20% smaller, or 20% faster, or 20% better in the corners, but Nikon didn't optimize for any of that. They chose to be a jack of all trades, but master of none of those 3 dimensions. But that's not a prime lens mission, that's what zooms are for.

The Sony's line is much more opinionated. Each prime is clearly optimized for one benefit. The ultra-lightweight G primes that sacrifice speed and sometimes distortion, and optically perfect GM primes that demonstrate the best weight/speed ratio in the business. They understand the point of a prime lens.

Essentially, the Z mount is not great for us prime shooters. The question is -- why? Is Nikon intenionally not understanging the purpose of prime lenses, or they just don't have capacity/capability? My theory is that it's the latter.



Sep 10, 2025 at 10:13 AM
Keunish
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


bernardl wrote:
Having used both Sony and Nikon offerings, I have to disagree.

Each time both brands offer a lens, the Nikon ends up being optically better, sometimes at the cost or more weight.

Now Sony has some outstanding lenses not yet available in Z mount, such as the 28-70mm f2.0 (even if I think this focal range is not very useful) and 50-150mm 2.0. But Nikon will come up with their own versions very soon and I suspect with more useful focal ranges. For now the sony lenses can be adapted to Z mount with excellent AF.

But then the lack of 35mm f1.2
...Show more

Maybe you're right for 35mm, 85mm and 135mm. But about 50mm (and I only speak about sharpness, nothing else), the 50mm GM f1.2 is sharper wide open than the 50mm f1.2 Z, I owned both and still own the Nikon, I definitely prefer the rendering of the Nikon, but the GM is sharper at close to mid distance (tried two copies of the Z).

https://www.lenstip.com/609.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_50_mm_f_1.2_S_Image_resolution.html
https://www.lenstip.com/601.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_50_mm_f_1.2_GM_Image_resolution.html

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/its-official-sony-now-has-the-best-50mm-lens-for-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras

Wide open, the focus is also much more accurate on Sony, even when using "old' Sony cameras like the A7III and A7C. I have a hard time with eye focus on my Nikons when using fast lenses. By exemple on my Z6III and 50mm f1.2S, I only use pin point or small area and I put the square manually on the eye to be sure to get perfect focus. I also had this issue on the 50mm f1.8 Z sometimes but it is really much worse on the f1.2 Z because of the faster aperture.

About the Sony lenses with excellent AF on Z bodies, I don't know, I use the last Megadap PRO+ (last firmware) and I have terrible focus with some lenses wide open. By exemple when using the 35mm GM wide open, I have very mixed results and I need to shoot in small burst to be sure to get at least one pic in focus, stopping down to f2 solves the issue but still ... I have the same issue than on the PetaPixel review :

https://petapixel.com/2025/07/22/megadap-etz21-pro-e-to-z-mount-adapter-review-viable-but-not-vindicated/

"What I found was a propensity for the adapter to hunt and second-guess focusing, even with a stationary subject. Sometimes the focus would drift or jump slightly off the iris, and I had to take multiple shots to up my chances of getting a good frame".

However with some lenses like the 135mm GM, no issue, even wide open (f1.8), I can't say the focus is excellent but it's certainly good enough.

I was interested by the 35mm Z f1.2 but the weight, price and maybe focus accuracy (from what I've seen on the thephoblographer.com site) give me pause. It's a shame because I love the rendering from the pics I've seen online, in my opinion much nicer than what I see from the 35mm f1.2 DG DN II.



Sep 10, 2025 at 10:17 AM
Nifty Fifty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


bernardl wrote:
Each time both brands offer a lens, the Nikon ends up being optically better, sometimes at the cost or more weight.

See 1.4/35 and 1.4/50.




Sep 10, 2025 at 02:00 PM
RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


Nifty Fifty wrote:
See 1.4/35 and 1.4/50.



This. Nikon laid two turds with the Z versions of these lenses. The 35GM being basically the best 35/1.4 ever made stings, especially at its size. The only thing that makes it sting less is knowing a Z that competes optically would be twice the size



Sep 10, 2025 at 02:03 PM
Dj R
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


I had all of the GM 1.2 and 1.4 lenses in between my original Nikon era and today (back on Nikon).

I do miss the size and weight of the Sony glass, especially the 35 1.4 GM, the 50 1.2 GM, the 85 1.4 GM i/ii.

The 135 1.8 GM was really good for everything, but it had absolutely zero soul. The Plena spanks it. And I don't mind the size of the Plena at all.

The 50 1.2? Sure the nikkor is a bit longer and heavier, but I usually am carrying ONLY a 50 on me, when shooting a 50. Prob not dual wielding much with a 50. So it's not that big a deal. And the nikkor version has nicer rendering, both lenses are spectacular.

The 35 1.2 S vs. 1.4 GM. Again, not much soul out of the sony here. But it's a good lens for sure. The nikkor bests it, if you're looking for the look.

The 85. The nikkor is an tank for sure. Again, it has a look, that the new GM II definitely doesn't have. The GM II is fine optically, like their 135, but no soul, no special sauce. The GM I has special sauce, but it's AF sucks for sport and things like that, so that's a no-go for me.

When 35/85 dual wielding, at a wedding.... this is where I notice the extra weight and size too!

Body wise, the Sony bodies are smaller and lighter, but I hated them. Prefer the larger Nikon/Canon bodies, although Sony batteries lasted longer! Ergo and color science, win for Nikon for sure.

All in all, after years on Sony, I am happy with my heavier bag, now, with the Nikon gears in it. Do I wish the bag was 4 lbs lighter, yes. But I am FAR happier with the files I'm creating, back on Nikon. Both have excellent DR (Canon still not there yet). But a HUGE nod to Nikon and their color vs. Sony. It's a no-brainer for me, I shoot people. And I hated the Sony color. I save so much time, and I feel so much better now, being back on Nikon. Even if I spent a ton of time getting color dialed in at a shoot, and then taking extra time to edit.... the sony files, I was never happy. Now I don't even set up for color. And I edit EASILY and painlessly. It's a huge deal for me.

Is it fair to ask why the lenses are so much bigger? I guess so, why not? I'm just hear to say, it's worth it.



Sep 10, 2025 at 02:25 PM
old-gregg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?


Dj R wrote:
But a HUGE nod to Nikon and their color vs. Sony. It's a no-brainer for me, I shoot people. And I hated the Sony color. I save so much time, and I feel so much better now, being back on Nikon. Even if I spent a ton of time getting color dialed in at a shoot, and then taking extra time to edit.... the sony files, I was never happy.


There's no such thing as Nikon color, unless you're in NX Studio. If you're in Lightroom you're staring at Adobe color and your camera manufacturer is irrelevant. And if you believe that Adobe's DCP profile for your camera is meh (happened before), you can just apply their Nikon profile to Sony RAW files.

Color is a software concern. Hardware is irrelevant.



Sep 10, 2025 at 02:35 PM
       2       3       4       5       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       3       4       5       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account